Please note: You need to have 'Active content' enabled in your IE browser in order to see the index of articles on this webpage

Amnesty International - Zimbabwe: human rights in crisis

Shadow
report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights

May
2007

This report is a response to the state report submitted by the
government of Zimbabwe to the African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights. Each chapter of this report was produced by a different human rights
organization, and each organization takes responsibility for the content of
its chapter.

IntroductionThis report was produced by five
independent human rights organizations in response to the government of
Zimbabwe's state party report to the African Commission on Human and
People's Rights (African Commission). It presents a very different picture
of the state of human rights in Zimbabwe to that contained in the
government's report.

In October 2006 Zimbabwe submitted its 7th, 8th, 9th
and 10th combined periodic state party report to the African Commission in
accordance with article 62 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights (African Charter). The report gave a glowing account of Zimbabwe's
record on civil and political rights, concluding that despite financial and
human resource constraints, "Zimbabwe has shown commitment to the protection
and promotion of the human rights".

However, despite the positive
impression given by the periodic report regarding Zimbabwe's record on civil
and political rights, the assertions in the report are undermined by the
realities on the ground. Since the submission of Zimbabwe's last periodic
report in 1996, Amnesty International, Article 19, Human Rights Watch, the
International Bar Association and Redress have carefully monitored the human
rights situation in Zimbabwe, through a combination of research, testimonies
and field work. All five organizations contend that the government of
Zimbabwe has failed to respect and protect the rights contained in the
African Charter.

The following shadow report was produced by the five
human rights organizations. Each chapter was written independently, but they
have been collated together to facilitate easy consideration by the African
Commission.

The five organizations submit that the facts presented in
this shadow report provide an alternative view of Zimbabwe's human rights
situation for the African Commission. It is to be hoped that the
commissioners consider Zimbabwe's combined periodic report objectively and
produce concrete recommendations to address the human rights situation in
Zimbabwe, a country which continues to operate outside the African Union
human rights framework.

ContextThe government of Zimbabwe has
brutally suppressed all forms of dissent since the Movement for Democratic
Change emerged as a political opposition party in 1999 and the government
was defeated in a referendum over a proposed new constitution in 2000.
Repressive laws have been introduced or revived, ostensibly to regulate the
activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media and civil
society groups. These laws have been selectively applied to silence
government critics.

The government has repeatedly claimed that western
governments have sought its downfall after it embarked on a land reform
programme targeting mostly farmers of European descent. However, most
victims of the government's policies have been Zimbabweans of African
descent who were targeted for daring to express their disapproval of
government policies or who were seen as supporters of the political
opposition.

In May 2005, the government embarked on Operation
Murambatsvina (Shona for "clear the filth", but translated by the government
of Zimbabwe in the state party report as "Restore Order"), a programme of
mass forced eviction. Operation Murambatsvina left some 700,000 people
without a home, livelihood or both. The mass evictions were carried out in
total disregard of due process. As a result of international pressure, the
government responded with what amounted to little more than a public
relations exercise. Operation Garikai/Hlalani Kuhle (Better Life) saw the
government constructing some 3,325 structures after destroying more than
92,000 dwellings. Of the structures built under the reconstruction
programme, approximately 20 per cent were allocated to police, soldiers and
civil servants and the remainder were given mostly to people who were not
affected by the mass evictions. Nearly two years on, many of the victims
remain homeless or living in makeshift accommodation.

The human
rights crisis in Zimbabwe is taking place in a context of a rapidly
declining economy. Inflation is running at more than 1,700 per cent. Formal
unemployment is at 80 per cent, and most employed people earn well below the
poverty line.

This shadow reportViolations of the right to freedom
from discrimination, the right to life and the right to property are
outlined in Chapter 1 by Human Rights Watch. The chapter details how these
rights have been repeatedly swept aside under the fast-track land reform
programme initiated in 2000, and in Operation Murambatsvina in
2005.

Chapter 2, written by the International Bar Association,
demonstrates how the principles of the rule of law and the independence of
the courts in Zimbabwe have been severely compromised through intimidation
of judges and lawyers. This has undermined the courts' jurisdiction and
authority and resulted in discrimination in the application of the
law.

Despite the prohibition of torture under international law,
including the African Charter, and the Constitution of Zimbabwe, Redress
submits in Chapter 3 that the government of Zimbabwe has systematically used
torture on a huge scale. Perpetrators include the army, law enforcement
agencies and other state agents including so-called "war veterans". The risk
of further torture for those who dare to report such violations and the
refusal by authorities to investigate has left victims without remedy or
reparation.

Chapter 4, by Amnesty International, details how the
government of Zimbabwe has repeatedly violated the rights to freedom of
association and assembly in order to curtail peaceful criticism of the
government from the public, civil society organizations and the political
opposition. A combination of excessive use of force by the police and
repressive legislation such as the Public Order and Safety Act (POSA) has
been employed to silence dissent.

Finally, Chapter 5, by Article 19,
highlights the shortcomings of the state report's description of Zimbabwe's
record on freedom of expression. It details the effects of restrictive
legislation on journalists, newspapers and broadcasters. This chapter also
shows how the government of Zimbabwe has clashed with the Supreme Court over
unconstitutional moves such as the state monopoly on
broadcasting.

Chapter 1: Human rights violations under the land reform
programme and OperationMurambatsvina

Prepared by Human Rights
Watch

The manner in which Zimbabwe's fast-track land reform programme was
implemented in 2000 resulted in violations of a number of rights defined in
the African Charter, including the right to property (Article 14). Other
rights which were violated include the right to freedom from discrimination
(Article 2), equality before the law (Article 3), the right to life (Article
4), the right to liberty (Article 5), the right to have one's cause heard
(Article 7), and the right to work under equitable and satisfactory
conditions (Article 15). The land reform programme also led to serious
violations of rights read into the African Charter by the African
Commission, including rights to food and adequate shelter.

The
programme's implementation also raised serious doubts as to the extent to
which it actually benefited the landless poor, as has always been claimed by
the government of Zimbabwe. The stated aim of the fast-track programme -
which the government has referred to in its state party report - was to take
land from rich white commercial farmers for redistribution to poor and
middle-income landless black Zimbabweans.

The need for land reform in
Zimbabwe is generally acknowledged, even by representatives of the
commercial farming sector, but the government refuses to acknowledge the
violence and intimidation that accompanied the land reform programme. Under
the land reform programme, ruling party militias, often led by veterans of
Zimbabwe's liberation war, carried out serious acts of violence against farm
owners and farm workers. Between 2000 and 2004, they used occupied farms as
bases for attacks against residents of surrounding areas. The police did
little to halt the violence, and in some cases were directly implicated in
the abuses.

The government also fails to mention how the process of
allocating land frequently discriminated against those who were believed to
support opposition parties, and in some cases those supervising the process
required applicants to demonstrate support for ZANU-PF, the ruling party.
Zimbabwe's several hundred thousand farm workers were largely excluded from
the programme, and many lost their jobs, driven from the farms where they
worked by violence or laid off because of the collapse in commercial
agricultural production. Even those people allocated plots on former
commercial farms appeared in many cases to have little security of tenure,
leaving them vulnerable to future partisan political processes or eviction
on political grounds, and further impoverishment.

In 2005, the
government of Zimbabwe launched Operation Murambatsvina ("clear the filth"),
a campaign of forcible evictions and demolitions in urban areas throughout
Zimbabwe. With little or no warning, often with great brutality and in
complete contravention of national and international standards, tens of
thousands of houses and thousands of informal business structures were
destroyed without regard for the rights or welfare of the people evicted.(1)
In the days and weeks after Operation Murambatsvina was launched, police
burned, bulldozed and destroyed tens of thousands of properties around the
country. The destruction resulted in mass evictions of urban dwellers from
their homes and the closure of informal sector businesses throughout the
country.

The humanitarian consequences of this man-made disaster were
catastrophic. There are few precedents of a government forcibly and brutally
displacing so many of its own citizens in peacetime. According to UN
estimates, 700,000 people - nearly 6 per cent of the total population - lost
their homes, livelihoods, or both as the result of the evictions. About 2.4
million people - some 18 per cent of the population - have been either
directly or indirectly affected by Operation
Murambatsvina.(2)

Zimbabwean authorities claimed that the destruction of
homes and other properties was part of a long-term plan to clean up the
urban areas (a claim that is repeated in the government's state party
report), restore order, rid the cities of criminal elements, and restore
dignity to the people. However, there were many alternative analyses of
Operation Murambatsvina, several of which alleged that the operation was
part of the government's efforts to debilitate the urban poor, force them to
move to rural areas, and prevent mass uprisings against the deteriorating
political and economic conditions in high density urban areas.

Human
rights violations under the land reform programmeLand reform is generally
advocated in Zimbabwe as urgently necessary to address the stark
inequalities in land distribution and wealth. However, as stated in the
African Charter and reinforced by other binding international treaties, the
rules providing for compulsory purchase should be clearly set out in law,
and those affected should have the right to ensure that their interests are
appropriately taken into account and to challenge decisions relating to
compulsory acquisition before a competent and impartial tribunal. In
addition, the security forces and criminal justice system must provide equal
protection to all those who are victims of violence, and the law should take
its course without interference from political authorities. None of the
rules providing for compulsory purchase have been met by the
government.

Discrimination in land allocationArticle 2: The right
to freedom from discrimination

Every individual shall be entitled to the
enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the
present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group,
color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and
social origin, fortune, birth or other status.

In its state party
report, the government claims that the process of fast-track land reform was
designed to meet the needs of disadvantaged black Zimbabweans. However, the
process of land distribution itself raised serious concerns. There was party
political control of access to the forms for applying for land and partisan
discrimination in the allocation of plots. ZANU-PF war veterans' militias
played a key role in distributing and allocating land, the same militias
that were responsible for violence and intimidation against many who might
have otherwise applied for a plot. A third problem was the general exclusion
of farm workers from the benefits of land redistribution.

Although
there was an official system for allocating land through the civil service
and elected officials, in many cases this was superseded by informal
processes governed by the war veterans, who required demonstrated loyalty to
ZANU-PF before allocating a plot.(3)

Some people from communal areas
who genuinely needed land to raise themselves out of poverty, as well as
some middle class people from urban areas who wished to enter commercial
farming, were among those who obtained land for the first time. The extent
to which real need was a criterion was difficult to assess because of the
difficulties of accessing fast-track resettlement areas or talking to the
ruling party militias that control most resettlement areas. Nevertheless,
there were serious concerns about the politicized nature of beneficiary
selection and thus about the extent to which fast-track land resettlement
was really benefiting those who most needed land.

Because the
fast-track process of resettlement was carried out so rapidly,
short-circuiting legal procedures, some of those who moved onto new plots
expressed concern that their title to land might not be secure.(4) Others
who wanted land did not take up the opportunity because they did not have
the resources to plough the land and because there was little if any
government support to assist new settlers. The absence of legal security and
government assistance left them vulnerable to hunger and displacement.
Development organizations following the crisis in Zimbabwe noted that the
disruption to commercial agriculture caused by fast-track resettlement
caused widespread food insecurity in the country.

Violence during the
land reform programmeArticle 4: The right to life

Human beings are
inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and
the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this
right.

Assaults against white farmer ownersWar veterans and
associated ZANU-PF militia occupying commercial farms intimidated and
assaulted white farm owners in the course of occupying commercial farms. By
March 2002, at least seven white farmers had been killed. Many of the
farmers targeted were prominent supporters of the MDC. Farm owners were
assaulted and threatened and their farms occupied whether or not their farms
were listed for acquisition by the government. At the time, President Mugabe
repeatedly singled out white Zimbabweans as enemies of the
state.

Assaults against farm workersMany more farm workers on
commercial farms were victims of violence during land occupations than white
farm owners. Dozens of farm workers were killed. Commercial farms were used
as bases for war veterans and ZANU-PF militia to intimidate suspected
opposition supporters in neighbouring communal areas. The police failed to
take action against the perpetrators of violent crimes, and in some cases
actively assisted illegal actions. The army, too, played a role in
organizing and facilitating the occupations, without providing any check on
the violence.

In June 2000, the National Employment Council for the
agricultural industry (a tripartite body of government, employers and
unions) reported that, as a result of the farm occupations, at least 3,000
farm workers had been displaced from their homes, 26 killed, 1,600
assaulted, and 11 raped. The majority (47.2 per cent) were supporters of the
MDC; nearly as many (43.6 per cent) had no political affiliation; a few (4.7
per cent) were ZANU-PF supporters.(5) The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum
documented the deaths of four farm workers and numerous assaults during
2001.(6)

Violence against farm workers was linked to the support given to
the MDC by commercial farmers and, by implication, their workers. In many
areas, it seems that farm workers were targeted for violence both so that
the assailants could take over their homes, and in order to deprive the
white farm owner of potential allies with a stake in keeping their jobs who
might have supported the farm owner in resisting government policy.
Weaknesses in the organizational representation of farm workers also made
them vulnerable to assault and intimidation.(7)

Police failure to
protect victimsThe government called for peaceful coexistence between farm
owners and the new settlers, but it dismissed violence against farm workers
and farm owners as an unfortunate cost of long-overdue land reform that had
been obstructed by white farm owners. Rural militias led by the war veterans
were able to count on the fact that the police would not interfere or would
intervene in only a limited way when they committed acts of political
violence. Although the government denied allegations of police failure to
act,(8) political interference in police work was widely reported by
opposition parties and human rights groups, as well as by some current and
former police officers.(9)

There were numerous reports of police
failure to apprehend perpetrators of violence. If they did arrest suspects,
they then released them without charge and without registering the case
number and providing it to the complainant. Even when police intervened to
protect those threatened by violence, few alleged perpetrators were
arrested. In numerous cases, farm workers and opposition activists explained
that police had said the assaults were "political" and that as a consequence
they would not intervene.(10)

On 6 October 2000, President Mugabe, using
his presidential powers, issued an amnesty for politically motivated crimes
committed between 1 January 2000 and 31 July 2000, the period of the
campaign for the February 2000 referendum and the June 2000 parliamentary
elections. The amnesty did not cover murder, rape, and robbery.(11) Some
victims of violence who had returned home during the period of relative calm
that followed the June elections were again assaulted by people who had been
arrested and were then released following the amnesty.(12)

Reports to
human rights NGOs and journalists describe the involvement of police and
soldiers in assisting some land occupations, and in some cases in looting
commercial farms. Even when courts ordered that occupations should be ended,
or farms were not designated for acquisition, or were taken off the list
following negotiations between the farm owner and the government, police
often did not remove occupiers from the farms unless given instructions to
do so by political authorities.

The right to propertyArticle 14: The
right to property

The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only
be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest
of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate
laws.

In its state party report, the government of Zimbabwe argues that
land reform has "enhanced the right to property". However, during the land
reform programme, the government violated right to property in a number of
ways.

Displacement and marginalization of farm workersIn many ways,
those most disadvantaged by the fast-track land reform programme were farm
workers. Before the land reform, there were 300,000 to 400,000 wage-earning
workers on commercial farms.(13) The UNDP reported that by January 2002, the
number of farm workers displaced was estimated at 30,000
families.(14)

About 25 per cent of the farm workers were of foreign
descent, mainly Malawian, Mozambican, or Zambian, although their families
may have lived in Zimbabwe for several generations. Many of these did not
have documents establishing Zimbabwean citizenship, either lacking papers
altogether or carrying national identification cards bearing the designation
"alien". Many farm workers who were not Zimbabweans by descent (even if they
had citizenship) had no access to the structures that allocated plots in the
communal areas.

Prior to the land reform, farm workers were already
the lowest paid workers in the formal sector in Zimbabwe, often housed in
poor conditions, and with inadequate access to schooling, healthcare, and
other services. This situation persisted despite the fact that following
independence, and under pressure from unions and NGOs working with farm
workers, increasing numbers of farmers did improve the conditions of service
for their workforce.(15)

In 1999, the government land policy framework
for the first time acknowledged the need for farm workers to be resettled as
well as those from communal areas, and recognized that those who entered the
country as indentured labour from 1953 to 1963, and their children, were
entitled to citizenship.(16)

Farm workers were among those with the
greatest need for land. But farm workers were not among the groups targeted
to benefit from the fast-track programme. As of October 2001, official
government statistics indicated that only 2,122 of the 123,979 households
recorded as resettled (that is, 1.7 per cent) were farm worker
households.(17)

The General, Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Union
of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ), which at the time had about 100,000 members, in a
paper presented to a September 2001 conference, characterized the fast-track
land reform programme as "the biggest challenge currently facing farm
workers in Zimbabwe.... There are approximately 2 million people that can be
labelled under the farm working community, and it is frightening to note
that the land reform programme is silent as to the fate of the
same."(18)

The large-scale occupation of commercial farms meant that
workers' wage employment on the farm often ended. In some cases, they were
allowed to remain on the farm, but could not work and were not paid; in
others, they were displaced, and had to find shelter as best they could.
Farm workers were in an invidious position as regards their political
affiliations: because of their dependent situation, they felt obliged to
show support for the political party favoured by the farm owner, and thus
became vulnerable to violence from supporters of other parties, whatever
their own beliefs.

Although farm workers were not precluded from applying
for land under the fast-track process, the problem for those who could not
prove their citizenship was that the process of registering for land
formally involved registration with the council of the communal area from
which they came, with no additional mechanisms put in place to enable them
to access the new allocations easily. Moreover, those farm workers who were
not of Zimbabwean descent had additional problems, since if they were
displaced from the farm they had no other place to go. Zimbabweans, on the
other hand, usually had the possibility of returning to their family's land
in the communal areas.

Amendment of Section 16 of the ConstitutionThe
government cites Section 16 of the Constitution in its state party report as
providing for the right to property. According to the government, this
section has been amended to provide for further instances where property can
be compulsorily acquired in the public interest, which is necessary to
finalize the land reform programme. However, the amendment to Section 16
(referred to as Constitutional Amendment No. 17), which was promulgated in
August 2005, has removed the jurisdiction of the courts over cases of
acquisition of land by the state and rendered impotent the fundamental right
to protection of the law, a fair hearing, and the independence of the
judiciary.

This amendment therefore effectively nullifies Section 16,
which lays down requirements that must be met by law in the compulsory
acquisition of property. These include reasonable notice of acquisition of
property, provision of fair compensation, and the opportunity for disputes
over acquisition of properties to be decided by the courts. Under the
amendment, none of these rights are recognized. The amendment also violates
Article 21(2) of the African Charter which states that: "In case of
spoliation the dispossessed people shall have the right to the lawful
recovery of property as well as to an adequate compensation."

Human
rights obligationsThe right to housing and shelter, protected by the African
Charter in part by Article 14, places an obligation on the Zimbabwean
government as a bare minimum not to destroy the housing of its citizens. It
also requires the government and all of its organs and agents to abstain
from carrying out, sponsoring or tolerating any practice, policy or legal
measure violating the integrity of the individual when they are seeking to
satisfy individual, family, household or community housing needs. The
violence directed against farm owners and workers, and the inaction of the
police, violated these obligations. The state is obliged to guarantee access
to legal remedies for those whose rights have been violated.

The
government has a duty to guarantee equal protection of the law to all people
(Article 3) without discrimination,(Article 2) and to prosecute serious
violations of human rights (Article 26), including where the perpetrator is
a private citizen. Independence of the judiciary is also a cornerstone of
international human rights law (Article 26). Crimes should be investigated
and prosecuted in a fair, effective, and competent manner by the relevant
law enforcement and judicial authorities. The Zimbabwean Constitution
provides similar guarantees.(19)

Human rights violations during Operation
MurambatsvinaOperation Murambatsvina ("clear the filth"), a programme of
mass forced evictions and demolitions of home and informal business, left at
least 700,000 people without homes, livelihoods or both. The evictions were
carried out with total disregard for the welfare of the people being
evicted, and created a humanitarian crisis of immense
proportions.(20)

The evictions took a particularly heavy toll on
vulnerable groups - widows, orphans, the elderly, households headed by women
or children, and people living with HIV/AIDS.(21) Thousands of people were
left destitute, sleeping in the open without shelter or basic services. To
date the government has taken no measures to investigate allegations of
abuses during the operation and to provide adequate remedies to those whose
rights had been violated.

The UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues
in Zimbabwe, Anna Tibaijuka, was deployed to Zimbabwe by the UN
Secretary-General in June 2005 to assess the scope and impact of Operation
Murambatsvina. She reported that the operation was carried out in an
"indiscriminate and unjustified manner, with indifference to human suffering
and, in repeated cases, with disregard to several provisions of national and
international legal frameworks."(22)

Despite condemnation from the
international community and appeals from humanitarian organizations, the
government of Zimbabwe has continued to defy its obligations under
international law and has failed to protect those affected and displaced by
the evictions. The government has refused to acknowledge the scale of the
crisis precipitated by the evictions, and continues to blatantly violate the
human rights of the people displaced by Operation
Murambatsvina.(23)

Denial of access to legal remediesArticle 7: The
right to have one's cause heard

1. Every individual shall have the right
to have his cause heard.The UN Special Envoy's report concluded that during
the evictions campaign, the government of Zimbabwe "breached both national
and international law" and that it should compensate the victims for
illegally destroyed property as well as redress the suffering caused by the
evictions and their aftermath. The report further called on the government
to identify and prosecute "all those who orchestrated this
catastrophe".(24)

Despite these clear recommendations, and Zimbabwe's
international obligations to provide effective remedies to victims of human
rights violations under the African Charter, the government has not carried
out any inquiries into the manner in which the evictions were carried out.
It has not investigated reports of excessive use of force by the police
during and after the evictions and has taken no steps to change the
legislation to provide for improved housing rights and security of tenure
for those in danger of eviction and displacement.

The government has
also failed to provide access to effective legal remedies to the victims of
Operation Murambatsvina. According to lawyers representing the victims of
the evictions, the courts, run by politically compliant judges, have to a
large extent used delaying tactics in processing cases related to Operation
Murambatsvina.(25) In addition, few people have sought compensation as most
do not believe that they would receive justice or effective remedy. It seems
highly unlikely that the vast majority of the victims will receive any
compensation or other forms of reparation from the government.

Forced
relocation to the rural areasArticle 12 (1): The right to freedom of
movement and residence

Every individual shall have the rights to freedom
of movement and residence within the borders of a State provided he abides
by the law.

In its state party report on the right to freedom of
movement, the government of Zimbabwe makes no mention of the hundreds of
thousands of people forcibly displaced under Operation
Murambatsvina.

The Zimbabwean authorities engaged in a concerted effort
to coerce the people displaced by the evictions to leave the cities and move
to the rural areas.(26) In different parts of the country police threatened,
harassed, or beat internally displaced persons (IDPs), forcing them to
relocate to rural areas where many had no homes or family and where social
service provisions such as healthcare, education, clean water and economic
opportunities were minimal. Fearing further displacement, many resorted to
hiding during the day and only returning to the places of their temporary
residence at night, to avoid detection and harassment by the police.
Thousands of people were forcibly taken to holding camps around the country
where they were forced to live in appalling conditions with little food or
adequate shelter. Thousands of these people, mainly women and children,
continue to live in dire conditions in a holding camp at Hopley Farm on the
outskirts of Harare.

In one case documented by Human Rights Watch, the
police forcibly relocated several hundred people from Mbare, a suburb of
Harare, to the Hopley Farm holding camp. On 2 October 2005 policemen with
dogs came to an informal IDP settlement in Mbare and threatened more than
250 men, women and children with physical violence and destruction of their
property if they did not leave the area by 5 October. Lawyers from the
organization Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) managed to file an
urgent application with the High Court preventing their further
displacement.(27) Several weeks later, a representative of ZLHR informed
Human Rights Watch that on 14 November at 2am, Harare City Municipal
Workers, accompanied by the police, forced the families onto trucks and took
them to Hopley Farm in contempt of the High Court order.

While
compelling people to relocate to rural areas, the government made no effort
to ensure that basic assistance would be available to the displaced after
the relocation, or even to track down those who chose to move. International
humanitarian agencies are still unable to trace thousands of people who were
displaced to rural areas.

The government also failed to make arrangements
to provide temporary shelter for the displaced. Up to a year after the
evictions, many thousands of displaced people continued to live in the open,
in disused fields or in the bush. Others lived in rudimentary shelters made
from the debris of destroyed houses, or squeezed into tiny rooms with family
members who had agreed to shelter them. The overcrowded conditions in the
houses and camps inevitably led to the spread of communicable diseases such
as tuberculosis.

By pursuing a campaign of forced evictions and
compelling people to move to the rural areas against their wishes, Zimbabwe
violated Article 12 of the African Charter, the right to freedom of movement
and residence. It is widely agreed that incorporated in the freedom of
residence is the right not to be moved. While such freedoms and rights may
be regulated by and subject to legitimate laws or policy, the laws or policy
cannot restrict the right in so far that the essence of the right is
impaired. Any law or policy which imposes restrictions on the freedom of
residence can only do so in a manner that is proportionate and suitable to
achieve the lawful end intended, that is, the protection of fundamental
values such as the rights and freedoms of others. The laws or policy must
also not be inconsistent with other rights protected by the African Charter.
The impact of Operation Murambatsvina on the freedom of residence protected
by Article 12 of the Charter was such as to impair the very essence of the
right and lead to a violation of this article.

Indiscriminate
destruction of propertyThe government of Zimbabwe also violated the right to
property through the indiscriminate destruction of property during Operation
Murambatsvina. The government violated the human rights of hundreds of
thousands of its own citizens by arbitrarily forcing them to destroy or cede
their property without due notice, process or compensation.

In its
state party report the government states that it has now embarked on
Operation Garikai, a property ownership scheme designed to provide proper
homes to many of those affected by Operation Murambatsvina. However,
Operation Garikai failed to address the immediate shelter needs of the
victims of the evictions, and few of those rendered homeless by Operation
Murambatsvina have received housing under Operation Garikai. The criteria
for allocation of housing under the programme, which include proof of formal
employment, a specified salary, and the payment of an initial deposit and
monthly instalments, make the housing unaffordable for the majority of the
displaced.(28) By April 2006, the government had reportedly built only 3,000
housing units for those displaced. The government has also failed to
prioritize the victims of Operation Murambatsvina under the scheme. Almost
two years after Operation Murambatsvina, thousands of people remain without
adequate shelter.(29)

The African Charter, under Article 14, forbids
the wanton destruction of property, and in particular where such destruction
involves violations of the right to shelter and housing, which is protected
under the Charter by the combined effect of Articles 14, 16 and
18.

At a very minimum, the government of Zimbabwe has an obligation to
ensure that those it rendered homeless during Operation Murambatsvina are
re-housed. To this end the government must review and revise Operation
Garikai in a transparent manner, in order to develop a comprehensive human
rights-based housing programme to address the housing needs of all victims
of Operation Murambatsvina.

Violations of economic, social and
cultural rightsArticle 16: The right to health1. Every individual shall
have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental
health.2. State parties to the present Charter shall take the necessary
measures to protect the health of their people and to ensure that they
receive medical attention when they are sick.

Article 17 (1): The
right to educationEvery individual shall have the right to
education.

The breakdown of the rule of law and the widespread disregard
for economic and social rights by the government of Zimbabwe were thrown
into stark relief in 2005 during Operation Murambatsvina. Evictions carried
out under Operation Murambatsvina were marked by violence and violations of
a range of economic, social and cultural rights including the right to
adequate housing, the right to education, the right to work and the right to
health.

While acknowledging its responsibilities under the rights to
health and education in its state report, the government typically fails to
mention or acknowledge the extensive violation of these rights during
Operation Murambatsvina and its failure to adequately address these
violations. Throughout Operation Murambatsvina, educational and health
facilities were destroyed, school children were displaced and denied access
to educational facilities and people living with HIV had their treatment
disrupted and discontinued.

Vulnerable groups ignored

During
the operation, the government made few attempts to provide or facilitate
priority humanitarian assistance to displaced vulnerable groups including
children, female-headed households, chronically ill and elderly
people.

People living with HIV/AIDSOperation Murambatsvina
disrupted access to medical treatment for a significant number of people
living with HIV/AIDS. Scores of people living with HIV/AIDS lost their
access to anti-retroviral treatment and home-based care. Six months after
the evictions, many displaced persons living with HIV/AIDS were still unable
to access anti-retroviral, tuberculosis or opportunistic infection
treatment. Local NGOs working with those living with HIV/AIDS reported that
they were unable to trace or reach many of their clients and alleged that
the government had made no attempts to locate their displaced clients and
facilitate access to treatment, food and shelter for those living with
HIV/AIDS.(30)

ChildrenThe plight of displaced widows and mothers of
children with disabilities also improved little in the months after the
evictions. For example, according to the director of a local organization
working with widows and orphans, many widows lost their homes or livelihood
as a result of the evictions. Mothers of children with disabilities living
in the urban areas of Harare were also heavily affected by Operation
Murambatsvina. Before the evictions, many of these families were able to
access physiotherapy and other forms of treatment for their children, as the
women were renting out cottages and selling vegetables to earn their living.
As a result of Operation Murambatsvina, some of the families lost their
livelihood and could no longer afford to pay for medical assistance for
their children or even for transport to take their children for
treatment.

Many women and children who were forced to sleep outside, in
inadequate shelters, or in overcrowded conditions with minimal assistance,
saw their children's health deteriorate. The families received no assistance
from the government. The situation of women and children living in the
government-recognized holding camp, Hopley Farm, was no less precarious, as
they also were deprived of any means of survival and the assistance provided
was extremely limited.(31)

The report of the UN Special Envoy on
Human Settlement Issues estimated that up to 223,000 children were directly
affected by Operation Murambatsvina.(32) In the aftermath of the operation,
the government provided little or no assistance to displaced children living
with their parents or guardians, children separated from their families, or
child-headed households.

Many of the displaced children face
significant hurdles in continuing their education. A survey on the effects
of Operation Murambatsvina by Action Aid found that overall, 22 per cent of
children who had been attending school before Operation Murambatsvina
dropped out because of the evictions.(33) The displacement has also further
hindered parents' ability to pay for schooling, causing more children to
drop out of school. In addition, children have moved further away from their
schools and many parents can no longer afford to pay the transport costs for
their children to go school.

Government obstruction of international
humanitarian assistanceFollowing the evictions campaign, UN agencies and
international NGOs in Zimbabwe, in consultation with donors, directed their
efforts towards meeting immediate needs for food, clean water, and shelter
to those who lost their homes or livelihood as the result of Operation
Murambatsvina. However, contrary to the recommendations of the UN Special
Envoy on Human Settlement Issues, who called on the government to provide
full and unimpeded access to local and international humanitarian
organizations, the government deliberately obstructed the efforts of
international agencies to assist the internally displaced.

In
September 2005, almost six months after the evictions, the government
refused to sign a draft emergency appeal proposed by the UN, which would
have helped those hardest hit by the evictions, and refused to sign an
agreement with the UN to mobilize much needed relief and reconstruction
aid.(34) It also refused to endorse the UN's Common Response Plan for
assisting victims of evictions.(35)

The government refused to allow
international agencies to provide tents or similar forms of temporary
shelter to the internally displaced, fearing that the erection of tent camps
would expose the scale of the crisis precipitated by the evictions. In
August 2005, shortly after several international agencies erected over 100
tents for the displaced in the area of Headlands, Zimbabwe police took the
tents down and explicitly told the UN country team that there should be no
"tents made of plastic sheeting".(36) In October 2005, the government was
still preventing international agencies from providing temporary shelter to
the displaced, claiming that there was no "compelling need to provide
temporary shelter as there is no humanitarian crisis".(37) In mid-November,
the government reportedly finally accepted a UN offer to build 2,500 "units"
for people made homeless by the evictions campaign. However it was unclear
what kind of shelter was to be provided and who the beneficiaries would
be.

The government also prevented international agencies from
distributing food aid to the displaced. A report by the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) noted that
assistance to the internally displaced presented "operational challenges
because of the government directive of assisting only those within
designated areas and with housing development approved by the city
councils".(38) Representatives of other international organizations and UN
agencies also claimed that the government had explicitly told them not to
provide food and other assistance to those staying in the open outside the
areas recognized by the government, namely Hopely Farm and Hatcliffe.(39)
While some humanitarian agencies initially tried to continue the delivery of
food assistance to the displaced, the government's non-cooperation
effectively paralyzed their operations, and by September 2005 little food
aid was being provided to the vast majority of the internally displaced. At
the time Zimbabwean authorities made it clear to local and international
humanitarian agencies that they would not allow local and international
organizations free access to the displaced. Those who sought such access
risked arrest, harassment and being barred from assisting any of the victims
of the evictions.(40)

ConclusionThe implementation of the fast track
land reform programme resulted in numerous violations of the African
Charter. The right to property (Article 14) was blatantly ignored. The
discriminatory and violent way in which the programme was implemented led to
violations of the right to freedom from discrimination (Article 2), the
right to life (Article 4) and the right to liberty (Article 5). The removal
of land seizure cases from the jurisdiction of the courts led to violations
of the right to equality before the law (Article 3) and the right to have
one's cause heard (Article 7).

The African Charter does not specifically
provide for protection against forced evictions, but has extensive
provisions on the protection of human rights that are typically affected by
the practice of forced evictions, such as the right to freedom of movement
and residence (Article 12), the right to enjoy the best attainable state of
physical and mental health (Article 16) and the right to education (Article
17). Decisions by the African Commission have articulated the obligations of
state parties in protecting these rights. Evictions conducted by a state can
give rise to serious human rights violations. This is particularly true when
they are carried out by force or without procedural guarantees. The
government of Zimbabwe's programme of forced evictions led to serious human
rights violations.

About Human Rights Watch

Defending human rights
worldwide

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is the largest human rights
organization in the United States of America, with offices across the world
dedicated to protecting the human rights of people all over the world. It
carries out research to hold perpetrators of human rights violations
accountable and pressure them to end such practices.

Chapter 2:
Attacks on the rule of lawPrepared by International Bar
Association

Since it last reported to the African Commission, the
Zimbabwean government has disregarded the doctrine of the separation of
powers between judiciary, executive and legislature, and the rule of law has
continued to deteriorate in Zimbabwe.

There are reports of the
government failing to protect members of the judiciary from intimidation,
threats and attacks by individuals or political groups. The government has
actively undermined the standing of the judiciary amongst society through
public statements and by ignoring orders of the court. It has permitted its
police force to act with impunity in violating the rights to liberty,
security and freedom from arbitrary arrest. The law has been applied in a
discriminatory fashion, with arrests and prosecutions being made on
political grounds. The right to a fair trial has not been respected and
there have been frequent attacks on lawyers. The government's failure to
respect the rule of law has led to countless citizens from across society
being robbed of their homes, land and livelihoods with no legal redress.
Furthermore, the government has failed to give effect to the economic,
social and cultural rights of its citizens.

Independence of the courts:
Article 26Article 26: independence of the courtsStates parties to the
present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the
Courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate
national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter.

Article 26 of the
African Charter guarantees the independence of the courts. This is
understood to include respect for court decisions and the institutions of
the judiciary. Under this Article, state parties have a positive obligation
to ensure that the judiciary is impartial and independent, as well as a
negative obligation to refrain from interfering with its independence. The
latter obligation includes ensuring that third parties do not compromise the
independence of the judiciary.

Despite these clear obligations, the
government of Zimbabwe has consistently failed to protect the judiciary from
interference from war veterans and other private individuals and has
disregarded the doctrine of the separation of powers. The effect of failing
to protect the independence of the judiciary in accordance with Article 26
has led to violations of other articles of the Charter namely Article 1
(duty to protect the rights enshrined within the Charter), Article 3 (equal
protection of the law), Article 6 (right to liberty and security) and
Article 7 (the right to a fair trial). In interfering with the independence
of the judiciary, the government of Zimbabwe has promoted a culture of
impunity for human rights abuses, thereby creating a further breakdown in
public order.

Threats and violence against the judiciary and
lawyersConsistent with Article 26 of the Charter, Section 79B of the
Zimbabwean Constitution stipulates that "a member of the judiciary shall not
be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority, except to
the extent that a written law may place him under the direction or control
of another member of the judiciary". Despite Section 79, members of the
government and ruling party have been involved in threats of violence and
physical attacks on lawyers, magistrates and prosecutors, and have failed to
take action against others who have committed such acts.(41)

During a
mission to Zimbabwe by the International Bar Association (IBA) in 2001,
attacks on the judiciary by senior members of the executive, Ministers,
Members of Parliament and the President were reported.(42) The Minister of
Justice, Patrick Chinamasa, is on record as stating that judges should be
politically correct, and not behave like "unguided missiles", a situation in
which he "wish[es] to emphatically state that [they] will push them
out".(43)

In November 2000, so-called war veterans and ZANU-PF supporters
physically attacked the Supreme Court during a case, beating up a guard and
preventing the court from sitting. The police dispersed the invaders, but
took no further action against them.(44) In a separate incident in August
2001 a large crowd, allegedly ZANU-PF supporters, demonstrated for three
days against a Karoi magistrate after he had granted bail to 106 farm
workers who were charged with public violence for attempting to remove war
veterans from their farms. In September 2001, after a Bindura magistrate
sentenced 17 ZANU-PF supporters to three years' imprisonment each for public
violence ahead of a by-election in June, it was reported that other party
supporters held "an all-night vigil" outside his home and intimidated his
wife. In November 2001 ZANU-PF militants assaulted a senior magistrate in
Gokwe after he convicted a ruling party supporter on a robbery charge and
sent him to jail for eight months. In August 2002 Walter Chikwanha, a
Chipinge magistrate, was dragged from his courtroom by a group of war
veterans and allegedly assaulted at the government complex after he
dismissed an application by the state to remand in custody five opposition
MDC officials. The magistrate reportedly had broken ribs and a fractured
collar-bone.(45) These threats and acts of violence against magistrates and
courts have not been condemned by the government and the perpetrators have
not been brought to justice.

In a widely reported case in September
2002, Justice Blackie was unlawfully arrested and arbitrarily detained.(46)
Justice Blackie retired and later indicated that his decision to retire was
prompted by the pressures he was under.

As a result of undue pressure
a significant number of judges have resigned. Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay
was induced to retire early, due to these repeated attacks on the judiciary,
compounded by a government minister who informed him that his safety could
not be guaranteed.(47) Further, there was speculation that the appointment
of three new judges to the Supreme Court Bench ahead of more senior judges
was based on their political affiliations.(48)

The Law Society of
Zimbabwe is a central institution for the legal profession and continues to
play an important role in the protection and promotion of the rule of law in
Zimbabwe. The Law Society has issued statements in support of the judges
such as former Chief Justice Gubbay and other members of the profession when
they suffered attack or threats. The consequence of taking such a stand in
defence of the rule of law and separation of powers has been extreme. The
Law Society has suffered a series of attacks including an invasion of the
offices by war veterans, the arrest, detention and ill-treatment of the
former President of the Society, Sternford Moyo, and Executive Secretary,
Wilbert Mapombere,(49) and criticism and threats against some of the
Society's Executive Officers in the state-run media.(50)

Undermining
the courts' jurisdictionIn addition to the intimidation and harassment of
the judiciary and legal profession, the government has sought to undermine
the jurisdiction of the courts. In September 2005 the Executive introduced
Constitutional Amendment 17 which removed the jurisdiction of its national
courts to adjudicate in land disputes. Not only did this law effectively end
thousands of cases of land disputes which had been pending before the
courts, but it also permitted future land acquisitions to take place without
the requirement of notice to affected landowners or the possibility of legal
challenge before the courts.(51) According to the African Commission, a
fundamental change in the law of this nature "constitutes an attack of
incalculable proportions on Article 7", and violates the independence of the
courts as provided for by Article 26.(52)

A growing trend has been
also been noted in which court orders have been ignored by the government
and police. This report presents a few of the more notable cases.

In
2000, the Zimbabwe Supreme Court ordered the Commissioner of the Police to
investigate allegations of torture perpetrated against two journalists who
published a story about an alleged military coup. The Court stipulated that
the police identify the perpetrators and that they be prosecuted. The
police, however, ignored the order and failed to undertake any
investigation, thereby permitting the perpetrators to go undetected.(53)
When the judges in this case objected to the failure to comply with its
order, President Mugabe publicly criticised them, stating, "[t]he judiciary
has no constitutional right whatsoever to give instructions to the president
on any matter as the...judges purported to do."(54)

Following the
government-sanctioned farm occupations and fast-track land reform programme
in 2000, a series of court orders declared the occupations to be in
violation of Section 16 of the Constitution. The IBA mission to Zimbabwe in
2001 found that a number of court orders declaring farm invasions illegal
were ignored by the police claiming either that they lacked manpower or that
it was a political matter.(55) President Mugabe is on record as having
stated that attempts to uphold such court orders would be unsuccessful
unless the Executive assisted.(56) In so stating, the president undermined
both the independence and standing of Zimbabwe's courts.

In October
2000, the authorities threatened to seize radio equipment belonging to
Zimbabwe's Capital Radio Station. In response, the radio station obtained an
interim court order in accordance with Section 17 of the Constitution
(protection from arbitrary search) preventing the police from seizing
equipment until the company's urgent application had been heard. Despite
having seen the court order, the police broke down the door to the company's
studio and seized some of its broadcasting equipment. This conduct was
justified by a police official who stated that he did not take his orders
from the court but only from his superiors.(57) He also disregarded the
advice of the Attorney-General not to proceed with the search and seizure.
The police official was later found to be in contempt of court but was not
punished.(58)

In a widely reported case, the government ignored a number
of court ruling in respect of Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ)
publications. On 18 September 2003, High Court judge Justice Omerjee ruled
that the police conduct of forcibly occupying the premises of the ANZ and
seizing their equipment was illegal and that they had no legal right to
prevent ANZ and its employees from gaining access to their premises.
Administrative Court judge Justice Majuru also ruled in favour of the
ANZ.(59) Justice Sello Nare upheld the ruling and allowed the ANZ to carry
into effect the judgment of Justice Majuru.(60) The Information Minister,
Jonathan Moyo, was reported to have said that the ANZ could not resume
operations and that the ruling by Judge Nare was "academic" and could not be
enforced.(61)

Disregard of laws and court orders was rampant in the
recent government mass evictions programme, Operation Murambatsvina (see
Chapter 1). In many instances, the police moved in without any notice and
bulldozed homes to the ground with people not having any recourse to the
courts.(62)

In disregarding the law and orders of the court, the
government of Zimbabwe is failing to give effect to the rights enshrined
within the African Charter. Additional to this, it has also enacted
legislation which is inconsistent with the Charter and goes as far as
obstructing rights enshrined within the Charter despite there being a bill
of rights within the Zimbabwe Constitution. An example of such a law is the
Public Order and Security Act, enacted in 2002, which has been used widely
by the government to interfere with and restrict freedom of association and
expression (see Chapter 4).

Failure to respect the rule of law and
Article 26 has also led the government of Zimbabwe to violate other
provisions within the African Charter which are detailed
below.

Respecting and implementing Charter rights: Article 1Article
1The Member States of the Organization of African Unity parties to the
present Charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in
this Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to
give effect to them

Article 1 of the African Charter requires the
state to recognise the rights enshrined within the Charter and to adopt
legislative or other measures to give effect to them. The African Commission
has confirmed that a state is not only obligated to recognize the rights, as
Zimbabwe does in some instances in its Constitution and laws, but is also
obliged to respect and give effect to them, which Zimbabwe has failed to
do.(63)

Disregard for the rule of law has led to a failure on the part of
the government to give effect to a number of the rights contained within the
African Charter and has harmed the enjoyment of economic, social and
cultural rights both directly and indirectly. A number of examples are
highlighted: i) widespread reports of the use of violence and torture,
including rape, in Zimbabwe raise concerns under the right to health; ii) a
result of widespread violence and lack of police protection has been a
massive exodus of teachers from Zimbabwe,(64) particularly from rural areas,
adversely affecting the right to education; iii) violence has also led
greater number of health professionals fleeing Zimbabwe leading to a virtual
collapse of the health sector in Zimbabwe;(65) iv) evictions carried out
under Operation Murambatsvina, for example, were "marked by violence and
violations of a range of rights including the right to adequate housing, the
right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of movement, the right to
education, the right to work and the right of access to health
care."(66)

Equality before the law and equal protection of the law:
Article 3Article 31. Every individual shall be equal before the
law.2. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the
law.

Article 3 of the African Charter provides for equality before the
law and equal protection of the law. The government of Zimbabwe has
consistently failed to accord with these provisions. In failing to protect
the independence of the courts, by ignoring court orders and by adopting
laws which remove legal redress for certain parts of civil society, the
government has removed equality before the law. Furthermore, the criminal
law has been applied selectively for political advantage. The African
Commission has been categorical in demanding equal application of judicial
decisions and has stated that it "is a breach of the principle of equality
if judicial or administrative decisions are applied in a discriminatory
manner".(67)

Public reports have also documented partisan conduct by
the police.(68) As the police force is an essential element in the
administration of justice, its failure to be impartial compromises the rule
of law and violates a number of provisions within the Charter.

Before
the June 2000 general election, the police on various occasions turned a
blind eye to violence perpetrated against opposition MDC supporters and
commercial farmers.(69) The IBA mission in 2001 to Zimbabwe found that there
was a strong perception amongst the population that prosecutions were taking
place based on political allegiances alone.(70) A cursory look at
prosecutions for political violence and under the Public Order and Security
Act indicates that an overwhelming majority of those who have been
prosecuted are members of the opposition.(71) Public statements by the
Police Commissioner and other cases confirm the practice of prosecuting
political opponents.

In addition, there are numerous reports of the
police beating civilians and engaging in acts of torture. The National
Constitutional Assembly (NCA) Chairperson, Dr Lovemore Madhuku, was reported
to have been severely assaulted by riot police during a demonstration in
Harare in February 2004.(72) In April 2004, human rights activist Tinashe
Chimedza was brutally assaulted by the police as he was about to address a
Students Forum. One of the lawyers who went to represent him, advocate
Tonderai Bhatasara, was harassed and briefly detained by the police
allegedly for walking into the police station wearing a
hat.(73)

Several lawyers have been threatened, attacked or obstructed by
police when defending clients in custody. Members of the legal profession
subjected to such abuses include: Otto Saki, who was denied access to his
client and later witnessed his torture; Advocate Bhatasara and Jacob Mafume,
who were subjected to abuse and threats as they tried to secure the release
of their clients; Beatrice Mtetwa, who called the police for assistance
after being carjacked, but was violently attacked by police in a police car
and in Borrowdale police station;(74) Justice Blackie, who was arrested
arbitrarily and imprisoned illegally; and Gugulethu Moyo, who was beaten in
a police station where she had gone to represent a colleague who was being
detained.(75)

Members of the women's organization Women of Zimbabwe
Arise (WOZA) have repeatedly been arrested and detained. In June 2004, 43
WOZA members were arrested during a peaceful meeting. Of the women, seven
had small babies or children. The children were detained along with the
women. Several of the women reported abuse, both verbal and physical. Some
women were allegedly beaten with a sjambok (whip) on the soles of their
feet.(76) Four of the women detained were charged under the Public Order and
Security Act, but the charges were later thrown out by the court, because no
actual violation was found to have been committed by the women.

On
International Women Human Rights Defenders Day in November 2006 WOZA members
peacefully marching in celebration of the event were arrested in Bulawayo
despite the march being lawful. Several women sustained severe injuries,
including bone fractures, from police action. More than 40 demonstrators
were arrested and were held overnight in police custody. Of those detained
with the adults, six were infant children.

The African Commission has
urged Zimbabwe to "avoid any further politicisation of the police service"
and to ensure that the police abides by the Constitution and does not serve
any political interests.(77) Despite this categorical request, the
government has yet to take action to rein in its police
force.

Liberty and security: Article 6Article 6Every individual
shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one
may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously
laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or
detained.

Article 6 of the African Charter protects the liberty and
security of person and prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. Any arrest
which is not in accordance with the law, where the law is applied
discriminately, or where the law is itself discriminatory, falls foul of the
provisions of Article 6. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that
arbitrary deprivations of liberty can never be justified, not even during a
state of emergency.(78)

A number of the violations of the African Charter
discussed earlier also raise concerns under Article 6. For example, the
cases of Tinashe Chimedza and his lawyer, Tonderai Bhatasara, clearly
represent violations of their right to security and liberty of person. So
too do the cases of Advocate Bhatasara, Jacob Mafume, Beatrice Mtetwa,
Gugulethu Moyo and Justice Blackie.

The treatment meted out to
members of WOZA also constitutes a violation of Article 6. The beatings and
mistreatment which took place in June 2004 after women attended a peaceful
meeting represent not only an arbitrary detention but also violated the
women's security. In November 2006 when the women were again targeted by the
police for peacefully marching, similar violations occurred. Not only were
the women arrested for a lawful activity, but also many women and children
were forced to sleep in the yard of the police station due to lack of space
in the police station. None of them were released so that they could take
medicine required to treat life-threatening illnesses.(79)

In a
separate incident in September 2006, trade unionists taking part in a
peaceful demonstration in Harare suffered shocking beatings and torture at
the hands of the police. Some were allegedly subjected to a form of torture
known as falanga (beatings on the soles of the feet), which often leaves
victims with difficulty walking and significant pain for the rest of their
lives.(80) After video footage of the beating of the trade unionists was
released to the media, President Mugabe responded by publicly condoning the
actions by the police.(81) This clearly indicates the level at which such
treatment is not only ignored, but actively supported by the Zimbabwean
authorities.

As is demonstrated by the examples cited above, the
police in Zimbabwe have been allowed to commit human rights violations on a
wide scale with impunity. The government of Zimbabwe is directly responsible
for the activities of all of its state agents. The police have violated the
liberty and security of a vast number of individuals, yet the government has
done nothing to prevent such action. Worse, it has condoned it.

The
right to a fair trial: Article 7Article 71. Every individual shall have
the right to have his cause heard. This comprises:(a) the right to an
appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his
fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws,
regulations and customs in force;(b) the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal;(c) the right to defense,
including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice;(d) the
right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or
tribunal.

2. No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did
not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No
penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at
the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on
the offender.

The right to a fair trial is recognised across a range of
international and regional treaties to which Zimbabwe is a party. Although a
number of the rights making up a fair trial may be suspended during times of
state emergency, the UN Human Rights Committee has expressed the view that
"the principles of legality and the rule of law require that fundamental
requirements of a fair trial must be respected during a state emergency.
Only a court of law may try and convict a person for a criminal offence. The
presumption of innocence must be respected."(82)

Under the African
Charter the right to a fair trial incorporates a number of principles: the
right to be tried by a competent and impartial court or tribunal; the right
to defence including by counsel of one's own choice; the right to be tried
within a reasonable time. In the example cited earlier of the removal of the
courts' jurisdiction over land acquisition disputes following Constitutional
amendment 17, the government of Zimbabwe is in breach of Article 7 1(a)
which accords everyone's right to appeal to a national court in the event of
a violation of their fundamental rights. As noted above, the African
Commission has previously observed that ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary
courts "constitutes an attack of incalculable proportions on Article 7", and
"violates the independence of the courts". (83)

Also notable are the
reports of attacks, harassment and hindrance of lawyers in the carrying out
of their professional activities. In such cases the right to a fair trial is
violated by failing to ensure the defendant has access to their counsel of
choice. Further, where legal counsel is intimidated, threatened or attacked,
it will not be possible for a fair trial to take place. The African
Commission has underlined the right to communicate in confidence with
counsel of choice; otherwise, there is a breach of Article
7.(84)

ConclusionThe government of Zimbabwe continues to be
responsible for an erosion of the principles of the rule of law and for
widespread and systematic human rights violations. Judges and lawyers have
been intimidated, the independence and standing of the courts undermined and
the law applied discriminately or not at all. There would appear to be no
indication that such action will decrease in the future.

Of
particular concern is the action of Zimbabwe's police force and the way in
which it is permitted to commit human rights violations with impunity. The
government has direct responsibility for agents of the state and must ensure
that they act in accordance with domestic, regional and international law.
The rule of law in Zimbabwe is in desperately poor shape and only by giving
effect to human rights norms, international treaty obligations and the
African Charter will the quality of life begin to improve for its
citizens.

About the International Bar Association

The global
voice of the legal professionIn its role as a dual membership organisation,
comprising 30,000 individual lawyers and over 195 Bar Associations and Law
Societies, the International Bar Association (IBA) influences the
development of international law reform and shapes the future of the legal
profession. Its Member Organisations cover all continents of the
World.

The IBA's Human Rights Institute works across the Association,
helping to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of
law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal
profession worldwide.

The HRI intervenes by making representations to
authorities worldwide; training lawyers, judges and prosecutors in human
rights law and international humanitarian law; undertaking fact-finding
missions and sending trial observers where there has been a significant
deterioration in the rule of law; galvanises international support to lobby
for change through media and advocacy campaigns; and provides long-term
technical assistance to Bar Associations and Law Societies worldwide. In
addition, it liaises closely with international and regional human rights
organisations and produces newsletters and other publications that highlight
issues of concern to worldwide media.

Chapter 3: Torture and
ill-treatment

Prepared by Redress

Torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited under Article 5 of the
African Charter.

Article 5: Freedom from torture and
ill-treatmentEvery individual shall have the right to the respect of the
dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal
status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly
slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and
treatment shall be prohibited.

ContextTorture has always been a
serious problem in Zimbabwe, both before and after independence. However,
since the current period of widespread and systematic human rights abuses
(including torture) began in 1998,(85) its scale is such as has not been
seen since the liberation struggle in the 1970s. This is despite the
prohibition against torture in Section 15(1) of the Zimbabwean Constitution:
"No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
punishment or other such treatment."

The campaign of violence,
intimidation and torture which began in 2000 after the government's defeat
in the constitutional referendum was seen as ZANU-PF's strategy to avoid
another defeat at the polls in the June 2000 parliamentary election. The
opposition MDC won nearly half the parliamentary seats, despite being
virtually outlawed in large parts of the country, and the widespread use of
physical violence including murder and torture against its perceived
supporters. The MDC immediately launched High Court election petitions,
challenging the results in 37 constituencies on the basis of ZANU-PF's
violence. Faced with the prospect of losing the election if these petitions
were upheld, the government turned its attention to assaulting witnesses in
the petition cases. Witnesses are known to have been attacked and tortured
in the constituencies of Chiredzi, Buhera North, Hurungwe, Karoi, Chinoyi,
Kariba, Chikomba, Makoni and Mount Darwin.(86)

The violent strategy
continued throughout 2001 in preparation for the March 2002 presidential
election, and torture became endemic. The period saw the widely disputed
re-election of President Mugabe, the virtual destruction of the rule of law
and the independence of the judiciary (see Chapter 2), and economic
collapse. During 2003 gross human rights violations on a widespread and
systematic scale, including torture, continued unabated, peaking during
local, mayoral and parliamentary by-elections, and during opposition-led
strikes and stayaways. In 2004 there was no significant improvement in
respect for human rights, although there was a drop in reports of torture
and organized violence immediately preceding the March 2005 parliamentary
election. Shortly afterwards Operation Murambatsvina marked a new low in the
government's human rights record. Reports of torture
continue.(87)

Overview: torture and ill-treatmentSuch was the concern
of the African Commission that it undertook a Fact-Finding Mission to
Zimbabwe in June 2002. Among other findings, it stated that "there was
enough evidence placed before the Mission to suggest that, at the very least
during the period under review, human rights violations occurred in
Zimbabwe. The Mission was presented with testimony from witnesses who were
victims of political violence and others victims of torture while in police
custody.[T]he Government cannot wash its hands from responsibility for all
these happenings.Government did not act soon enough and firmly enough
against those guilty of gross criminal acts." (88)

During the period July
2001 to November 2004 inclusive, one Zimbabwean human rights coalition
reported 2,742 allegations of torture. This formed the single largest
category of gross human rights violations (24 per cent) reported to it.(89)
The decline in reported torture just before March 2005 reflected a change in
tactics on the part of the government. However, it was soon followed by the
violent destruction of tens of thousands of homes and the forced
displacement of thousands of people in Operation Marumbatsvina. This
reflected the government's disregard of international norms including the
prohibition against cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment.

Zimbabwe's
jails are also the site of on-going serious human rights abuses. Gross
overcrowding, lack of proper food, medical care and hygiene, and overall
neglect, singly and combined constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment. Part of the reason lies in Zimbabwe's catastrophic economic
decline: prisoners are entirely marginalized and very much at the mercy of
their custodians.(90)

Torture takes many forms and is perpetrated by
the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), army, government militias, the Central
Intelligence Organisation (CIO), government organized war veterans and
ZANU-PF members. Beatings, rape and electric shocks are some of the methods
used. Increasingly, "irregulars" commit the abuses -­­­­ they may be in
civilian clothes and their identity may be unknown, or they may be youth
militia brought into an area from outside so that they will not be easily
recognized, or they may be dressed up in police or military uniforms to
further hide their identities. All of this has been widely reported in
numerous documents, by both Zimbabwean and international human rights
groups, and has been confirmed by the findings of the Zimbabwean courts in
various civil suits.(91)

The torture cases set out below are a handful
which have entered the public domain. They are cited to illustrate the wide
range of victims and some of the main perpetrators, as well as the state's
consistent failure to promptly and thoroughly investigate and prosecute
offenders. As shown, even where it has been clearly established that torture
has taken place, and where the courts have ordered the police to
investigate, the state has not done so.

At the level of international
law, torture is absolutely prohibited and gives rise to state responsibility
as well as individual criminal liability. Torture is prohibited under
Zimbabwe's Constitution but over the past six years it has become widespread
and systematic. The African Commission Fact-Finding Mission set out
recommendations to deal with this and other human rights violations, but
there is no sign that the government intends to deal with the problem, which
is one of its own creation and for which it is accountable. A culture of
impunity for gross violations of human rights persists, including for those
who commit or order torture.

Some individual torture
cases

Chavunduka and Choto (1999)In January 1999 an independent
Harare newspaper reported that army officers had allegedly been arrested
after a coup plot.(92) As a consequence of the report (which the state
branded as lies), two local black journalists, Mark Chavunduka and Raymond
Choto, were unlawfully detained by the military and severely tortured.
Despite urgently obtained court orders for their release, they were held for
more than a week during which time they were beaten with fists and wooden
planks and subjected to electric shock and water immersion torture, among
other forms of gross ill-treatment. The case led to unprecedented public
protests, including from the judiciary which addressed an open letter to
President Mugabe calling upon him to restore the rule of
law.

Protests included a peaceful human rights march on Parliament
led by lawyers in court regalia. President Mugabe's response was to threaten
the judges and to justify the treatment of the journalists, while the
marchers on Parliament were stopped by the riot squad with dogs, tear-gas
and batons. A meeting of human rights NGOs with Attorney-General Chinamasa
drew his assurance that he would direct the Commissioner of Police to
investigate.(93) He later reneged on this assurance. Eventually, after the
journalists made an application to the Supreme Court, judges ordered the
police to investigate the torture.(94) However, the police made no serious
effort to do so. Mark Chavanduka died in 2002. In February 2005 it was
reported that the government had paid Raymond Choto and the late Mark
Chavunduka's estate a combined total of Z$24 million (about US$3000) civil
damages.(95)

Blanchard, Dixon and Pettijohn (1999)In March 1999,
three US nationals -­­ Gary Blanchard, John Dixon and Joseph Pettijohn -­­
were arrested at Harare International Airport on their way to Switzerland,
and subsequently charged with the illegal possession of firearms. Before
trial the men brought an urgent application in the Supreme Court stating
that they had been severely tortured after their arrest, and that the
conditions in which they were being held in a maximum security prison
pending trial constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.(96)

At
the men's trial in September 1999 it emerged that in the days after their
arrest by the Criminal Investigation Department, police officers tortured
them, including by inflicting electric shocks to their genitals and beating
the soles of their feet. Both state and private doctors gave evidence
consistent with what the men said had happened to them. The trial judge
concluded that the police had indeed severely tortured the men, and noted
that although one Detective Inspector had said that the state had been
investigating the complaints: "the only conclusion this court can come
to is either nothing is being done about the complaints or if something is
being done, clearly incompetence seems to be the situation, because it does
not take four months to come up with a completed investigation about this,
in which it has been alleged some twenty different persons were
involved."(97)

No steps have ever been taken against the
torturers.

Masera, Zulu, Moyo, Sibanda, Mpofu, Dulini-Ncube
(2001-2002)One week before the June 2000 parliamentary elections, war
veterans kidnapped MDC polling agent Patrick Nabanyama from his home in
Bulawayo. He was never seen again but no body has ever been found. The
alleged kidnappers were arrested and charged with murder in 2001. One of the
accused was Cain Nkala, a war veteran leader in Bulawayo. In November 2001
Cain Nkala himself was kidnapped and within days several MDC members were
arrested and charged with his murder. They were kept in custody under
appalling conditions for many months.

The trial of six of them began
in February 2003: Sonny Masera, Army Zulu, Remember Moyo, Kethani Sibanda,
Sazini Mpofu and Dulini-Ncube, an MDC MP. Dulini-Ncube was denied treatment
for his diabetes whilst in custody and later had to have an eye surgically
removed.(98)

At the Nkala murder trial the six accused MDC men said that
the police extracted the evidence against them under torture, and a
trial-within-a-trial was held to determine the admissibility of this
evidence. The police denied any ill-treatment.

In March 2004 the
trial judge ruled that the evidence was indeed inadmissible. She
meticulously analysed the evidence of police officers involved in the case,
contrasting their stories with those of the accused and each other, and
including examinations of written statements and confessions, police diaries
and logs, video evidence and other exhibits. She found the police had
deliberately made false entries in their records, altered written
statements, lied to the court, been evasive in their evidence, and had
fundamentally violated the most basic human rights of the men on trial. In
uncompromising language she threw out the incriminating statements,
indications and even video recordings with the concluding comment: "The
evidence of the State witnesses who are police officers is fraught with
conflict and inconsistencies. The witnesses conducted themselves in a
shameless fashion and displayed utter contempt for the due administration of
justice to the extent that they were prepared to indulge in what can only be
described as works of fiction.The magnitude of their complicity was such as
to put paid [sic] to this court attaching any weight to the truth or
accuracy of their statements." (99)

As a result, the evidence that
the detainees had been tortured was accepted, including the following
accounts. Remember Moyo was hit with a rifle-butt, pushed out of the back of
a moving police vehicle while shackled in leg-irons and handcuffs, had his
head banged against a car wheel, was held on the ground on his back with his
legs-spread eagled while a police officer jumped on his genitals with booted
feet; he bled from his nose and ears, lost consciousness and was so badly
injured he could hardly walk; later he was further assaulted in a cell, kept
stripped naked, shackled and beaten by more policemen, a former MDC member
and war veterans. Khetani Sibanda was detained, assaulted and threatened by
men who later revealed themselves as CIO. He was forced to learn and repeat
a story implicating other MDC members in Cain Nkala's murder. At one point
he was taken to Ncema dam near Esigodoni and told that if he didn't
co-operate he would be fed to the crocodiles; he was deprived of food, water
and sleep. Sazini Mpofu was assaulted by being kicked and punched; he was
driven around Bulawayo for many hours while being assaulted in and out of
the vehicle, and at the police station.

None of the torturers have
been prosecuted, nor any of the police officers disciplined.

Shumba
and Sikhala (2003)January 2003 saw the torture of an MDC MP, Job Sikhala,
and his lawyer, Gabriel Shumba. This received wide international
condemnation as it was seen as a direct attack both on the parliamentary
opposition as well as on civil society, Gabriel Shumba being a human rights
defender working for the leading human rights coalition in the country, the
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. Both men and three others were arrested
while Gabriel Shumba was advising his client, Job Sikhala, who had faced
constant police harassment since the June 2000 parliamentary elections. Over
a three-day period Job Sikhala and Gabriel Shumba were separately moved from
place to place, deprived of all food and severely tortured.

Gabriel
Shumba was tortured by a group of about 15 men. He was kicked, slapped about
his head, and tightly hooded so that breathing was extremely difficult; he
was threatened with dogs and taken to what was believed to be CIO
underground torture chambers at Goromonzi where he could hear the sounds of
screaming in another room, thrown against a wall, stripped naked and
shackled; he was then assaulted all over his naked body with fists, booted
feet and thick planks and hung upside down and beaten on the bare soles of
his feet with wooden, rubber and metal truncheons; he was given severe
electric shocks to the feet, ears, tongue and genitals, and threatened with
acid, crucifixion and needles thrust into the urethra; he was covered in
some unknown chemical substance; having lost control of his bodily functions
he was forced to drink his own urine and lick up his blood and vomit; his
torturers urinated on him, took photographs of him being tortured, and
threatened him with death. Job Sikhala was also said to have been severely
tortured. The men were apparently forced to confess to false allegations,
including the burning of a ZANU-PF vehicle and a plot to violently overthrow
the government. Medical examinations after their release were consistent
with their allegations, and when they appeared in court the evidence of
torture was so clear that all charges were dropped immediately. Gabriel
Shumba later fled to South Africa.(100)

None of the allegations of
torture have been investigated. Gabriel Shumba's case is pending before the
African Commission.

Sibanda, Luphahla, Botomani and Gama (2004)In
September 2004, four Bulawayo youths were kidnapped and allegedly severely
tortured. The youngsters - Mandlenkosi Sibanda, Mandlenkosi Luphahla,
Tisunge Botomani and Nkosilathi Gama - were all members of ZANU-PF, and were
apparently tortured at Magnet House, the headquarters of the CIO in
Matabeleland. They were said to have been kidnapped from their homes in the
high-density suburb of Emganwini and tortured for over four hours. They were
apparently beaten all over their bodies with clubs, belts and electric
cables, sustaining broken bones and serious injuries to their
genitals.(101)

The youths named the CIO agents and said that the head
of the Bulawayo CIO, Innocent Chibaya, had witnessed the torture. As a
result of the publicity, Vice President Msika was reported to have ordered
an investigation into Innocent Chibaya as well as the police chief in
Bulawayo, Charles Mufandaidze. Later that month a newspaper reported that
two of the CIO officers said to be responsible, Sylvester Chibango and
Medicine Furusa, had been charged and convicted of common assault and fined
the equivalent of US$8 each.

Chiyangwa, Karidza, Matambanadzo,
Dzvairo, and Marchi (2004-2005)State agents kidnapped ZANU-PF MP Phillip
Chiyangwa on 15 December 2004 as part of an alleged spy-ring selling state
secrets to South Africa. Others arrested around the same time were banker
Tendai Matambanadzo, ZANU-PF diplomat Godfrey Dzvairo, ZANU-PF functionary
Itai Marchi, and ZANU-PF's deputy-director for security Kenny
Karidza.

Tendai Matambanadzo, Godfrey Dzvairo and Itai Marchi were jailed
for breaching the Official Secrets Act after a secret trial in which they
tried to withdraw guilty pleas made earlier. Their allegations that
confessions had been made under duress were rejected. Godfrey Dzvairo was
sentenced to six years' imprisonment, and Itai Marchi and Tendai
Matambanadzo to five years each.

Phillip Chiyangwa was released in
late February 2005. Most court proceedings were shrouded in secrecy but
serious torture allegations emerged. Phillip Chiyangwa testified that he was
kidnapped in the car park of a Harare hotel, a black hood was thrown over
his head, and he was driven by a long and circuitous route to an underground
location where he was detained in solitary confinement in a completely dark
vermin-infested cell for two weeks, with no toilet facilities. Here he was
interrogated for hours on end, threatened and intimidated until he had a
mild stroke, but was denied medical attention. His condition was later
confirmed by a doctor who recommended hospitalization, but this was refused.
He was denied legal representation until brought to court on 30 December
2004.

Kenny Karidza, whose trial for spying began on 27 January 2005, was
not brought to court sooner as there were reports that he had been so badly
tortured that the CIO did not want him seen in public until he had somewhat
recovered. More than a month after his arrest, sources said he was still
unable to walk or talk properly, his legs were badly swollen and he was
unable to eat. It appears that the case has developed into a trial-
within-a-trial, with the accused objecting to the admissibility of evidence
proffered against him.(102) The trial has not yet
finished.

ConclusionThe government continues to be responsible for
widespread and systematic human rights violations, including torture, and
there is little sign of either a decline in violations or of any serious
action to investigate allegations and prosecute offenders. There have been
numerous reports of victims who have tried to report an abuse to the police,
only to be detained and further abused by the police themselves. Very
occasionally in a "non-political" case torturers are properly prosecuted,
but this is very much the exception rather than the norm.(103)

The
police are now as much to blame for the systematic use of torture as other
law enforcement agencies. During March 2003, in the lead-up to two
parliamentary by-elections in Harare, as well as after a two-day peaceful
general strike in protest against the government, a fresh wave of ZANU-PF
violence was unleashed, resulting in hundreds of civilians being beaten and
tortured. The police were heavily involved in these abuses. The CIO, army,
youth militias, so-called war veterans and ZANU-PF groups have all
participated in widespread and systematic gross human rights
violations.

A recent analysis shows that in the period mid-2001 to the
end of 2005 there were 15,523 reported human rights violations, with torture
constituting the largest category - over 18 per cent of the
total.(104)

The jurisprudence of the African Commission is clear: the
Article 5 prohibition against torture is premised on "the dignity inherent
in a human being."(105) There is overwhelming evidence that the current
Zimbabwean government has repeatedly trampled on that dignity through the
widespread use of torture, the failure to prevent torture and the refusal to
investigate and prosecute those responsible and to afford proper reparations
to the victims of torture.

There is no realistic likelihood of the
perpetrators investigating and prosecuting themselves. In this context
thousands of victims have been left without any effective remedy or
reparation for what they have suffered, and the culture of impunity
persists. Unless consistent, widespread and effective external pressure is
placed on the government, the human rights situation will continue to
deteriorate.

The government's state party report dated 20 October 2006
has a section on Article 5 (with Article 4) at pages xvii-xxi. However, the
word "torture" in the substantive text appears for the first time on page
xx: " Zimbabwe is facing challenges in the area of torture, as allegations
of torture by law enforcement agencies have been raised by sections of civil
society organisations as well as opposition political parties." The next
paragraph deals with domestic violence, before returning to torture with the
following paragraph: "Zimbabwe is in the process of ratifying the Convention
Against Torture and its optional protocol and is working with the office of
the special rapporteur on torture with a view to inviting the rapporteur to
assist law enforcement officers to appreciate the implications of torture."
The rest of the section reverts to the issue of domestic
violence.

With these two sole paragraphs referring to torture the
government has sought to side-step not only the facts of widespread and
systematic torture but also the government's responsibilities and
obligations under the Charter with respect to the practice. It has not even
attempted to deal with matters of court record, the testimony of torture
victims presented to the African Commission's 2002 Fact-Finding mission, and
the large number of other credible reports. This transparent failure exposes
a government seeking to evade liability and culpability for these
international crimes.

About The Redress Trust (REDRESS)

Seeking
reparation for torture survivors

REDRESS is a human rights organization
working internationally to obtain justice for survivors of torture and
related crimes and to end impunity for governments and individuals who
perpetrate it, and to develop and ensure compliance with international
standards. The organization provides specialized legal advice to individuals
and communities in securing their rights, conducts advocacy with
governments, parliaments, international organizations and the media, and
works in partnership with like-minded organizations around the
world.

Chapter 4: Violations of the rights to freedom of association and
assembly

Prepared by Amnesty InternationalThe rights to freedom of
association and assembly are guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Article 10: Freedom of
association1. Every individual shall have the right to free association
provided that he abides by the law.2. Subject to the obligation of
solidarity provided for in 29, no one may be compelled to join an
association.

Article 11: Freedom of assemblyEvery individual shall
have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right
shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law in
particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety,
health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others.

The rights to freedom
of association and assembly are also guaranteed under Section 21 of the
Constitution of Zimbabwe and in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Zimbabwe is a party. However, these basic
freedoms have been regularly violated in Zimbabwe over the past 10
years.

The rights to freedom of association and assembly are most
commonly violated in order to prevent members of the public, human rights
and civil society organizations and political opposition parties from
peacefully voicing criticism of the government and its policies. From 2000
onwards, violations of the rights to freedom of association and assembly
increased markedly, frequently accompanied by other violations including
arbitrary arrests and detentions, ill-treatment and torture.

Until
2000 government repression of the rights to freedom of assembly and
association was mainly aimed at civil society groups and trade unions
critical of government policy. However, following the emergence of the MDC,
the denial of these rights increasingly targeted the political
opposition.

The rights to freedom of assembly and association have been
violated by a range of means. Before 2002 excessive use of force by police
officers and the army and threats to shoot protestors - sometimes made by
senior government officials - created a climate of fear in which individuals
could not freely exercise their rights. After 2002, in addition to excessive
use of force, the state also resorted to using repressive laws to curtail
freedom of assembly and association.

LegislationIn 2002 the
government introduced a law to curtail the rights to freedom of association
and assembly, drawing on colonial-era legislation to do so. The Law and
Order Maintenance Act (LOMA) was enacted in 1955 by the Rhodesian
authorities to severely restrict freedom of expression, assembly and
movement. It remained in place after independence. However, over the years,
the Supreme Court had removed several unconstitutional clauses.

In
2002 LOMA was replaced by the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) which was
fast-tracked through Parliament in December 2001, apparently to enable the
government to hamper the campaigning activities of the newly emerged MDC in
the run-up to the March 2002 presidential elections. In January 2002, the
Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Human Rights
Defenders, Hina Jilani, sent an urgent appeal to the Zimbabwean authorities
regarding the passage through Parliament of the POSA in relation to concerns
that the Bill would restrict the fundamental rights to freedom of
expression, association and assembly.(106) Following a Fact-Finding Mission
to Zimbabwe in 2002 the African Commission, in its resolution on the human
rights situation in Zimbabwe, adopted in Banjul, the Gambia, in December
2005, called on the government of Zimbabwe "to respect the fundamental
rights and freedoms of expression, association and assembly by repealing or
amending repressive legislation, such as the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, the Broadcasting Services Act and the Public
Order and Security Act."

Provisions of the Public Order and Security
ActSections 23-31 of the POSA regulate the organization and conduct of
public gatherings and provide the police with extensive powers to control
them. For example, Section 24 requires that police are given four days'
advance notice of public gatherings or meetings. The POSA defines a public
meeting as "any meeting in a public place or meeting which the public or any
section of the public is permitted to attend, whether on payment or
otherwise." The POSA imposes a highly restrictive definition of a public
gathering - applying it to any meeting of two or more people. Sections 25
and 26 grant the police wide powers to break up and even prevent public
gatherings altogether if they are deemed to endanger public order. Section
27 of the POSA allows police to ban demonstrations for a period of up to a
month.

In practice, police have interpreted these provisions as a
requirement for police permission to organize public gatherings or meetings
and have applied the law selectively to refuse the political opposition and
civil society groups permission to hold public gatherings and meetings. In
some cases permission has been given initially but then withdrawn at the
last minute with police repeatedly citing lack of manpower to monitor and
control the meetings as a reason. Furthermore, in practice the police have
used arbitrary criteria to distinguish between "private" and "public"
gatherings, and have used the POSA to arrest people for meeting in their own
homes or places of business.

Since its enactment the police have used
the POSA to arbitrarily arrest hundreds of Zimbabweans, mainly opposition
supporters and civil society activists. The penalties upon conviction for
failing to comply with police orders are fines or imprisonment of up to six
months under Section 25(107) or a year under Section 26;(108) or both fine
and imprisonment.

Although the POSA has provided a pretext for widespread
violation of the rights to freedom of association and assembly, to date
no-one has been convicted under the Act. Many people arrested under the POSA
for allegedly participating in "illegal" meetings or demonstrations have had
the charges against them dropped or dismissed in court due to lack of
evidence (see below).

The Miscellaneous Offences ActMany people
have been arrested under the POSA only to have the charges changed to
"conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace", an offence under the
Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). In effect, the police have used the MOA to
regularize arbitrary arrests.

When people are arrested they are
frequently offered the option of paying a fine under the MOA - effectively
an admission of guilt - in order to be released from custody. Police have
reportedly told detainees that if they do not pay a fine then they would be
detained for 48 hours or more and could face more serious charges. Squalid
conditions in police holding cells and fear of harassment and ill-treatment
force many detainees to pay fines for offences they have not committed. This
practice, which means police avoid a judicial review of the legal grounds
for the arrest, constitutes an abuse of police power and establishes an
environment in which the practice of arbitrary arrest can
flourish.

Trade unionsTrade unionists have long been among the main
targets of government attempts to repress freedom of association and
assembly. In the second half of the 1990s labour unions became increasingly
critical of government policies and the declining standard of living in
Zimbabwe.

Since 2000, it has become more and more difficult for workers
in Zimbabwe to carry out legitimate organization and representation
activities without police interference. This is largely due to the
government's belief that labour activists from the Zimbabwe Congress of
Trade Unions (ZCTU) and other unions have been working with the MDC to
mobilize the electorate to vote ZANU-PF out of power. In-house meetings of
the ZCTU, such as General Council meetings, have been monitored and
sometimes disrupted by the police.

ZCTU officials and members have been
subject to arbitrary arrest, torture and excessive use of force by the
police. For example, on 13 September 2006, 15 members of the ZCTU, including
President Lovemore Matombo, First Vice-President Lucia Matibenga and
Secretary General Wellington Chibebe, were arrested in Harare after
attempting to engage in a peaceful demonstration. They were severely
assaulted during arrest. They were detained at Matapi police station and
tortured. Doctors confirmed that the ZCTU activists were beaten on the soles
of the feet - a torture method called falanga which leaves many victims with
life-long problems with walking.

On the same day, 13 September 2006,
in the farming town of Chegutu, 11 members of a ZCTU affiliate union, the
General Agricultural and Plantations Workers' Union (GAPWUZ), were arrested
after handing over a petition at a government office. They were taken to
Chegutu Police Station and reportedly tortured while in police custody over
a three-day period. They were made to lie on the stomach and were beaten on
the soles of the feet while held in leg irons and handcuffs. The 11 trade
unionists were later charged under POSA and granted bail.(109)

The
previous day, 12 September 2006, police had arrested ZCTU leaders across the
country in an apparent pre-emptive action to forestall the ZCTU
protest.

On 8 November 2005 more than 100 people were arrested in Harare
when the ZCTU tried to hold a peaceful demonstration protesting against the
grave economic situation in Zimbabwe. Lawyers were initially denied access
to the detainees, who were moved by police from one police station to
another in an apparent attempt to prevent contact with lawyers. Neither the
detainees nor their lawyers were informed of the charges against them until
the second day of their detention, when police said they would be charged
under the POSA. However, the Attorney General refused to prosecute and all
the detainees were released on 11 November.(110)

At least 100 trade
union and human rights activists were arrested throughout the country on 18
November 2003 in order to prevent them from staging a peaceful demonstration
against the economic crisis and human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. In Harare
approximately 50 activists were arrested including ZCTU President Lovemore
Matombo and Secretary General Wellington Chibebe. Those arrested in Harare
remained in custody until 20 November 2003. On the afternoon of 20 November
2003 they were taken to the Magistrate's court and charged under the POSA.
The following day the charges against all were dropped, reportedly for lack
of evidence.

On 8 October 2003 at least 200 trade union activists were
arrested in various parts of Zimbabwe ahead of planned demonstrations
against high taxes and inflation. While some were arrested under the POSA,
most of the union activists were charged under Section 7(b) of the MOA, and
made to pay fines. Those arrested included ZCTU President Lovemore Matombo
and Secretary General Wellington Chibebe, as well as many other members of
the ZCTU's national executive.

The political oppositionThe focus
of much of the government's clampdown on freedom of association and assembly
has been the MDC. In the run-up to the 2000 parliamentary elections,
political meetings throughout the country were violently disrupted. People
who were unable to produce a ZANU-PF party membership card were beaten.
Conversely when prominent ruling party politicians were holding rallies,
people were forced to participate. Many identified members of the MDC were
made to publicly renounce their membership and had their membership cards
and T-shirts burnt. These sessions were often televised. People who refused
to cooperate were in many instances beaten by war veterans and youth
militia.(111) As mentioned above, since 2002 the government has used
provisions of the POSA to target the MDC and hamper its ability to campaign
and mobilize support.

On 21 February 2007 police announced a
three-month ban on rallies and demonstrations in Harare South District and
Harare's suburb of Mbare. The police cited Section 27 of the POSA. However,
the three-month period appears to be in breach of the POSA, which only
allows bans "for a specified period not exceeding one month." Bans for up to
a month were imposed in Chitungwiza, Harare Central District and Harare
Suburban District.

Following the police bans, the Save Zimbabwe Campaign,
a coalition of church and civil society organizations, organized a prayer
meeting in Harare's suburb of Highfield on 11 March 2007. Police clamped
down on the peaceful gathering, arresting about 50 activists. The activists,
including MDC leaders, were severely beaten during arrest and later tortured
while in police custody at Machipisa police station. Several suffered
multiple fractures and soft tissue injuries and were hospitalized. Police
shot dead Gift Tandare, the youth chairperson of the National Constitutional
Assembly (NCA) local structure in a Harare suburb.

On 18 March 2007,
MDC Member of Parliament Nelson Chamisa was attacked by eight men believed
to be state security personnel as he approached the departure lounge at
Harare International Airport. He was hit with metal bars and suffered a
broken skull. No one has been arrested.

On 27 March 2007, Last
Maengahama, deputy secretary for local government of the MDC faction led by
Morgan Tsvangirai, was abducted outside Borrowdale Shopping Centre in Harare
by people in plain clothes who were believed to be security agents. Last
Maengahama was returning from a memorial service for Gift Tandare, the
activist shot dead by police in Harare on 11 March 2007. Last Maengahama was
later deposited by his abductors in Mutorashanga, some 100 km from Harare.
He had been severely beaten. No one was arrested for this
attack.

Several MDC leaders and activists were arrested on 17 March 2007,
including Arthur Mutambara, a leader of one of the MDC factions, when they
tried to leave for South Africa.

At the time of compiling this
report, 13 MDC activists, including MP Paul Madzore, were in detention,
accused of attacking police stations and other installations. They were
severely beaten by police while in custody, the beatings amount to torture,
and were repeatedly denied bail.

On 23 February 2007 police reportedly
told the United People's Party (UPP) that its inter-district meeting to be
held the following day had been cancelled. The UPP had earlier been cleared
by the police to hold the meeting, a requirement under the POSA. The
incident took place around a time when the police were arbitrarily stopping
any public activities by the political opposition and civil society
groups.

On 23 February 2007 police in Bulawayo stopped a planned rally by
the Morgan Tsvangirai-led faction of the MDC. Police arrived heavily armed
and supported by anti-riot water cannon vehicles and barred MDC leaders and
supporters from entering the venue.

On 17 February 2007 riot police
stopped a planned MDC rally in Harare's suburb of Highfields despite a court
order issued by the High Court barring police from disrupting the rally.
Several people were assaulted by police and sustained serious injuries.
Police later imposed a three-month ban on all demonstrations in parts of the
city. The ban was apparently illegal as the period was above the one month
provided for under the POSA. Following the disturbances in Highfields,
police arrested Tendayi Biti, the Secretary General of the Morgan Tsvangirai
faction of the MDC, as well as other leaders and accused them of inciting
violence.

Human rights defendersHuman rights defenders have played a
vital role in exposing the human rights violations that have taken place in
Zimbabwe, particularly over the last five years. They have also been
instrumental in organizing peaceful public displays of protest about human
rights issues. In response, the government, in an apparent effort to conceal
human rights violations and prevent public criticism of its actions, has
become increasingly intolerant of the work of human rights defenders and is
actively seeking to silence them, including by denying their right to
peaceful association and assembly.

On 17 September 2003, the police used
the POSA to arrest members of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) who
were holding a peaceful demonstration to protest against the forced closure
of The Daily News and The Daily News on Sunday. On more than three occasions
in 2004, peaceful demonstrations arranged by the NCA resulted in hundreds of
its members being arrested, beaten and harassed. Other NCA members have been
detained.

In June 2002, approximately 80 people were arrested and charged
with unlawful assembly under the POSA, during a rally held to commemorate
the 25th anniversary of South Africa Youth Day. A Supreme Court application
challenging the constitutionality of the POSA was filed, but the case was
adjourned to January 2003, effectively undermining any practical exercise of
the right to freedom of assembly in this case.

Case study: Women of
Zimbabwe AriseSince February 2003 activists from WOZA have repeatedly been
arrested by the police while taking part in peaceful demonstrations to
protest against the worsening social, economic and human rights situation in
the country. The treatment of WOZA illustrates the government's increasing
repression of peaceful public demonstrations expressing criticism of
government policies. It also highlights the way in which the law,
particularly the combination of the POSA and MOA, is used to allow arbitrary
arrests and detentions and to facilitate a range of other human rights
violations by the police.

The cases below represent some of the more than
20 occasions when WOZA members have been arrested over the past four years
for engaging in peaceful demonstrations and marches.

Arrested for
demonstrating against increases in school fees (2006)More than 100 members
of WOZA and approximately 70 school children were arrested on 4 May 2006
following a peaceful demonstration in Bulawayo to protest against increases
in school fees. While in detention at Bulawayo Central police station, two
leaders of WOZA, Magodonga Mahlangu and Jenni Williams, were allegedly
threatened by a senior police officer. The threat to Jenni Williams is
reported to have amounted to a death threat. All the accused were later
acquitted.

Arrested for praying in public (2005)On the evening of 31
March 2005, the day of the parliamentary elections, police arrested
approximately 260 women, some carrying babies, when WOZA attempted to hold a
peaceful post-election prayer vigil at Africa Unity Square in Harare. During
and after the arrests, several of the WOZA activists were badly beaten. Some
were forced to lie on the ground and were beaten on the buttocks by police
officers. Amongst those beaten by police was a 74-year-old woman, who
reports that she was told to "pray because you are going to die".

The
women and children were detained overnight in an open-air courtyard, under
armed guard. The detainees were initially denied access to lawyers. Police
reportedly told the women that they could pay a fine if they pleaded guilty
to minor offences under MOA, and would be released. However if they did not
pay the fine, they were told they would remain in detention over the weekend
until 4 April when the courts re-opened, to face charges under the POSA.
Over the course of 1 April all of the women - several of whom were elderly,
injured or with their children - elected to pay fines rather than spend the
weekend in the cells. Once again the MOA was used to elicit "admissions" of
guilt.

Arrested on International Women's' Day (2005)On 8 March 2005
approximately 24 WOZA activists were detained by police in Bulawayo when
they attempted to stage a demonstration to mark International Women's Day.
Several of the women reported that they were taken to their homes which
police officers then searched. The police officers did not produce search
warrants. All of the activists were released later the same day without
charge.

Arrested for handing out flowers on Valentine's Day (2005)On
12 February 2005 some 53 women were arrested after a WOZA demonstration in
Bulawayo to mark Valentine's Day. The activists marched with banners
proclaiming "The Power of Love can conquer the Love of Power" and handed out
roses to the public. At least three of the women arrested were reported to
be bystanders, not involved in the WOZA action. The prosecutor reportedly
refused to take court action under the POSA and the activists were released
over the following three days on payment of "admission of guilt" fines under
MOA.

Arrested for participating in a sponsored walk (2004)On 19
September 2004 more than 30 WOZA activists began a 440 km sponsored walk
from Bulawayo to Harare to raise funds for women's rights work. Other
activists joined the walk at different stages.

On 28 September police
arrested 48 WOZA activists, together with four men who were assisting them
on the walk, some 60 km from Harare. The police claimed the walkers had
contravened the POSA. They were reportedly intimidated and threatened by
police officers. Another woman activist, Siphiwe Maseko, was arbitrarily
detained the same day when she attempted to deliver food to those in
custody; she was released the following day without charge. The other 52
were held in custody until 1 October, when a magistrate ruled that they had
no case to answer. All were released.

On 29 September WOZA activists who
had not been arrested the previous day finished the walk, gathered at Africa
Unity Square in Harare and held a brief prayer service for those in
detention. As they began to disperse, nine activists were arrested by
police, who reportedly claimed that they had contravened Section 19 of the
POSA by "praying in public". Section 19 of the POSA refers to gatherings
conducive to "riot, disorder or intolerance". The group was detained at
Harare Central Police Station where three of the women were allegedly
assaulted by a plain-clothes officer during interrogation. All of the
activists were released on bail on 1 October. When they appeared in court on
13 October, no charge sheets were presented and all were
released.

ConclusionThe government of Zimbabwe has selectively
applied provisions of the POSA and MOA to restrict the right to freedom of
assembly and association, in blatant contravention of the African Charter.
The political opposition, trade unions, human rights groups and other civil
society organizations have been targeted. Police have been used to break up
meetings and have refused the political opposition permission to hold public
meetings. In some cases, the police have disregarded court orders allowing
demonstrations. Incidents of excessive use of force by the police have been
extensively documented by local and international
organizations.

About Amnesty International

Working to protect
human rights

Amnesty International (AI) is an independent worldwide
movement with over 2.2 million members from over 150 countries and
territories, campaigning for a world in which every person can enjoy all of
the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
other international human rights standards.

Chapter 5: Violations of
the right to freedom of expression

Prepared by ARTICLE 19

Freedom
of expression and the right to receive information are guaranteed by Article
9 of the African Charter.

Article 9: Freedom of expression1. Every
individual shall have the right to receive information.2. Every individual
shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the
law.While the government of Zimbabwe's state party report to the African
Commission correctly cites Article 9 of the African Charter as the basis of
the right to freedom of expression, it fails to cite also the African
Commission's Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa,
which was adopted by resolution by the African Commission in 2002.(112) The
Declaration provides critically important details of the requirements of
Article 9 of the African Charter and of how to give effect to freedom of
expression.

The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in
AfricaPrinciple I of the Declaration states:1. Freedom of expression and
information, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas, either orally or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
form of communication, including across frontiers, is a fundamental and
inalienable right and an indispensable component of democracy.2.
Everyone shall have an equal opportunity to exercise the right of freedom of
expression and to access information without discrimination.

Principle
II(2) of the Declaration articulates the circumstances in which the right of
freedom of expression can be restricted, embodying the requirements of
international law:Any restrictions on freedom of expression shall be
provided by law, serve a legitimate interest and be necessary in a
democratic society.

These Principles provide a clear framework within
which to assess whether the restrictions on the right of freedom of
expression in Zimbabwe since 1996 comply with or violate the African
Commission's requirements for the protection and promotion of the right of
freedom of expression.

The Constitution of ZimbabweThe state report
notes that the right of freedom of expression is protected in Section 20 of
the Constitution of Zimbabwe and that this section of the Constitution has
not been altered (p. xxxi of the state report).

The state report notes
that a number of pieces of legislation "have been enacted in terms of the
Constitution" (p. xxxii). This statement is both misleading and incorrect.
Since 1999, the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down legislation on the
explicit basis that it was inconsistent with Section 20 of the
Constitution.

Further, there is no reference in the state report to the
successful challenge to the constitutionality of the state monopoly on
broadcasting in 2000, or the fact that despite the Supreme Court ruling, the
monopoly has been kept continuously in effect since then. A state
broadcasting monopoly is expressly prohibited in Principle V of the
Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, and thus
constitutes an ongoing violation of Article 9 of the African
Charter.

The state report also does not take note of the fact that
numerous Communications have been filed with the African Commission in
recent years concerning violations of Article 9. One of the requirements for
a Communication to be ruled admissible is that all domestic remedies have
been exhausted. It has become increasingly clear since 1996 that obtaining a
judicial remedy in Zimbabwe - particularly in regard to human rights
matters - has been rendered illusory. (See Chapter 2: Decline in the rule of
law.)

Legislation restricting freedom of expressionThe state
report refers to the following pieces of legislation:

Broadcasting
Services Act 2001 (BSA)The BSA was enacted in response to the Supreme
Court's ruling that the state broadcasting monopoly was unconstitutional.
The BSA, however, provides the necessary tools for the maintenance of the
broadcasting monopoly - a broadcasting regulatory body which is not
protected from political influence and control, and with broad discretionary
powers to call for broadcast licence applications and to issue licences. As
a result, the state broadcasting monopoly has been held firmly, and
continuously, in place since 2000, despite the Supreme Court's
ruling.

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 2002
(AIPPA)Despite its name, the AIPPA is not concerned with the promotion of
access to publicly-held information. Rather, the AIPPA establishes a
repressive compulsory licensing system for all individual journalists and
media outlets and also imposes a number of highly restrictive content
prohibitions. It established the Media Information Commission (MIC) for the
purpose, among other things, of processing compulsory annual licence
applications from journalists and media houses. The MIC is
government-controlled, with the Minister for Information and Publicity
appointing its members and exercising significant powers of dismissal and
control over their terms of office.

Postal and Telecommunications Act
2000 (PTA)The PTA removed, again in name only, the state monopoly in the
telecommunications industry.The state report does not, however, make any
reference to the following recent laws which have a significant impact on
the right of freedom of expression.

Public Order and Security Act
2002 (POSA)POSA is a highly authoritarian legislation which has been
compared by constitutional lawyers to apartheid-era security legislation in
South Africa.(113) It was introduced as a replacement for some of the
provisions of the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act 1960 (LOMA), which had
been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but many of the provisions
of POSA are also of questionable constitutionality. Under POSA, it is
illegal to undermine the authority of the president, cause any hostility
towards him or make abusive, obscene or false statements against him; also
under POSA a group of three people on the street requires express police
approval, and it is illegal for anyone to disturb the peace, security and
order of the public in any way, or utter words which are intended to provoke
a breach of the peace; finally, police are empowered to arrest anyone at a
public meeting who is not in possession of an identity card. POSA has been
used by the Zimbabwean government and security forces to shut down hundreds
of protests and demonstrations and to intimidate civil society organizations
in their day-to-day operations.

Presidential Powers (Temporary
Provisions) Broadcasting Regulations 2000Within a week of the Supreme Court
ruling the state broadcasting monopoly to be unconstitutional, the President
exercised his power under the Presidential Power (Emergency Regulations) Act
to pass legislation with a life span of six months or less without any
requirement to have it ratified by Parliament. The legislation which the
President enacted was the Presidential Powers (Temporary Provisions)
Broadcasting Regulations 2000. This was the basis for the broadcast
regulatory framework which still exists to this day, and under which the
state broadcasting monopoly has been held in place. After the lapse of six
months, the Broadcasting Services Act was enacted in substantially the same
terms as the Presidential Power (Temporary Provisions) Broadcasting
Regulations 2000, despite the Parliamentary Legal Committee issuing a report
declaring a number of the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Bill to be
unconstitutional on the basis that they were inconsistent with Section 20 of
the Constitution.

Broadcasting Services (Amendment) Act 2003This Act
was a response to a second ruling by the Supreme Court concerning the
unconstitutional nature of the regulation of broadcasting in Zimbabwe. This
Act corrected the bare minimum required by the Supreme Court ruling but did
not fix the core problem, namely the overarching discretion and lack of
independence of the regulatory body which enabled the maintenance of the
state broadcasting monopoly. Without addressing this central issue, all
other corrections to the broadcast regulatory framework were rendered void,
as most of the provisions do not come into effect until a licence to
broadcast is issued, and no licences have been granted.

Constitution
of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 17) Act 2005This Act amends Section 22(3)(a) of
the Constitution to allow restrictions on the freedom of movement of human
rights activists and others in the name of national interest, the public
interest or the economic interests of Zimbabwe. The amendment also removes
the constitutional prohibition on the enactment of a law which prevents a
person from leaving Zimbabwe on these grounds in Section 4 of the
Constitution.In addition, the Interception of Communications Bill 2006 is
presently under consideration, which would allow the authorities to monitor
the communications of people and organizations suspected of being critical
of the Zimbabwean government.

Case law related to freedom of
expressionThe state report refers to four specific cases concerning the
right of freedom of expression:Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto v The
Minister for Home Affairs & Attorney General of Zimbabwe S.C. 36/2000
[the Chavunduka case]Independent Journalists Association of Zimbabwe and
Others v The Minister of State for Information and Others S.C 136/02 [the
IJAZ case]Capital Radio (Private) Ltd v The Broadcasting Authority of
Zimbabwe and Others S.C. 128/02 [the Capital Radio case]The prosecution
of Andrew Barclay Meldrum for violating Section 80 of the AIPPA [the Meldrum
case]

The state report merely lists and briefly describes each of these
cases without explaining their impact on the right of freedom of expression
in Zimbabwe.

The state report also fails to refer to two cases of
critical importance:The Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) case seeking
registration with the Media Information Commission (MIC) [the ANZ
case]Capital Radio (Private) Ltd v Minister for Information, Posts and
Telecommunications S.C.00/2000 [the first Capital Radio case]

Mark
Chavunduka and Ray Choto v The Minister for Home Affairs & Attorney
General of Zimbabwe [the Chavunduka case]The state report fails to
attribute any significance to the Supreme Court decision in the Chavunduka
case, merely noting the existence of this case and that "[t]he Court decided
in the applicants' favour, but did not make any determination as to the
falsity or truthfulness of the publication". (p. xxxiv)

The
Chavunduka case is, in fact, a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. In
handing down its judgment in this case in 2000, the Court demonstrated its
willingness to strike down legislation inconsistent with Section 20 of the
Constitution. In the Chavunduka case, the Court held that a statutory
prohibition on "false news" undermines the realization of the right of
freedom of expression.(114)

On 10 January 1999, The Standard
newspaper published a story alleging that there had been an unsuccessful
coup attempt in the Zimbabwean army. Two days later, Mark Chavunduka, the
editor of The Standard, was arrested and held for over a week. Raymond
Choto, the author of the article, voluntarily surrendered himself to the
police. Both were severely tortured and spent time in the UK receiving
treatment (see Chapter 3: Torture and ill-treatment). They were charged with
publishing false statements likely to cause fear, alarm or despondency among
the public or any section thereof and faced prison sentences of seven
years.

The Supreme Court held that false statements were protected by the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and that Section 50(2)(a)
of LOMA breached that guarantee in that it was excessively vague, did not
serve a legislative objective of sufficient importance to warrant overriding
a constitutionally protected right and was excessively broad. On this basis,
the Supreme Court held Section 50(2)(a) to be
unconstitutional.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, within two years the
Zimbabwean government enacted Section 80 of the AIPPA which prohibits
publishing false information which threatens the interests of the state
(amongst other things). Within months of this provision being resurrected in
the AIPPA, it was used against journalist Andrew Meldrum (see
below).

The Independent Journalists Association of Zimbabwe and Others v
The Minister of State for Information and Others [the IJAZ case]The
applicants challenged the constitutionality of Sections 70, 80, 83 and 85 of
the AIPPA on the basis of inconsistency with Section 20 of the Constitution.
In 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the
provisions. The applicant are now pursuing a Communication at the African
Commission, which submits that these provisions constitute a violation of
Article 9 of the African Charter.

Capital Radio (Private) Ltd v Minister
for Information, Posts and Telecommunications S.C 00/2000 [the first Capital
Radio case]In a landmark decision, Capital Radio successfully challenged the
constitutionality of the state broadcasting monopoly, facilitating the
prospect of private broadcasting in Zimbabwe. The Supreme Court handed down
its judgment on 22 September 2000, ruling the state broadcasting monopoly to
be unconstitutional, on the basis of being inconsistent with Section 20(1)
of the Constitution.

The Zimbabwean government's response was to rush
through temporary regulations (the Presidential Powers (Temporary
Provisions) Broadcasting Regulations 2000) requiring any prospective
broadcaster to hold a broadcasting licence issued by the Minister in
response to a call for broadcast licence applications. The first call for
broadcast licence applications was made almost four years later in 2004, and
no licences were issued then or since.

Capital Radio (Private) Ltd v
The Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe and Others [the Capital Radio
case]This was the second Supreme Court application by Capital Radio
concerning provisions contravening Section 20 of the Constitution (see
below). In this application, Capital Radio challenged the constitutionality
of a number of the provisions of the BSA, which formalized the broadcast
regulatory framework initially introduced by unilateral presidential decree
regulations (the Presidential Powers (Temporary Provisions) Broadcasting
Regulations 2000). Capital Radio challenged the constitutionality of the
composition of the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ), the licensing
process, including restrictions on who may apply for a licence, and the
conditions attached to licences, the short period of validity of licences,
and various restrictions on programme content.

There was significant
delay in the hearing of the proceedings and when judgment was finally handed
down, the Supreme Court ruled that it had not considered the
constitutionality of the majority of the provisions, on the basis that the
applicant did not have standing to challenge them. The provisions which the
Court did rule to be unconstitutional were the appointment of the Minister
as the licensing authority, the short period of licence validity, the limit
to one national commercial licence for each of radio and television, the
limit to one signal carrier licence in addition to the state-controlled
Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) and the requirement that a licensee,
other than the public service broadcaster, could not hold both a broadcast
licence and signal carrier licence.

The Zimbabwean government's response
to this ruling of the Supreme Court was to enact the BSA Amendment Act
which, as discussed above, modified the bare minimum of the BSA and did not
address the overarching discretion and lack of independence of the
regulatory body.

The Meldrum caseThe state report describes the
Meldrum case as one in which the applicant had published a false report that
a woman, connected to the opposition, had been beheaded by ZANU-PF
supporters in the presence of her two daughters during the 2000 election
campaign.

What the state report fails to reveal is that in 2002 Andrew
Meldrum, correspondent for the UK newspaper The Guardian, was acquitted of
the allegation levelled against him ("abusing journalistic privilege by
publishing a falsehood"). Unhappy with this result of due process, the
Zimbabwean government sought to have Andrew Meldrum removed from the
country - without legal basis. Within hours of the ruling of the acquittal,
Andrew Meldrum was served with a deportation order by the Ministry of Home
Affairs. He made an application to the High Court challenging the
deportation order. The High Court suspended the deportation order and
referred the matter to the Supreme Court. No date was set for a Supreme
Court hearing, however, and in 2003 he was abducted and forcibly deported
with only the clothes he was wearing.

The ANZ caseWhen the AIPPA
was enacted, the ANZ Group sought to challenge its constitutionality in the
Supreme Court. On the basis that ANZ had pursued a constitutionality
challenge rather than applying for a licence, the MIC refused to issue a
licence to the ANZ Group for its publications The Daily News and The Daily
News on Sunday, which were, at the time, the only independent newspapers in
operation in Zimbabwe.

This denial of a publishing licence has been
maintained ever since 2002. ANZ has tried to enforce its right to procedural
fairness through the courts, but delays and weaknesses in the judicial
system have resulted in the continued denial of a licence.

By way of
summary, on 11 September 2003 ANZ made an application for a licence when
directed to by the Supreme Court, as a necessary pre-requisite to its
constitutionality challenge. On 12 September 2003, the Zimbabwean police
raided the offices of The Daily News and The Daily News on Sunday, arresting
staff, confiscating equipment, shutting down the media outlets and occupying
the premises.

On 19 September the MIC rejected ANZ's licence application.
In October, the Administrative Court ruled that the MIC's refusal was
illegitimate because the MIC was improperly constituted ( the Court ruled
that the Chairman of the MIC was biased against ANZ). The Court further
ruled that if the MIC was not properly constituted by 30 November 2003 and
had not ruled on the ANZ application in a properly constituted capacity, ANZ
would be deemed duly registered.

On 19 December 2003, the
Administrative Court ruled that ANZ was entitled to resume publication.
Despite the ruling, the police refused to end their occupation of the
premises of The Daily News and The Daily News on Sunday. On 9 January 2004,
the High Court ordered the police to cease occupying the premises but this
order was ignored.

On 4 March 2004, the Supreme Court reserved judgment
in MIC's appeal and the related cases. In March 2005, the Supreme Court to
handed down its judgment -confirming the Administrative Court's ruling that
the MIC was improperly constituted. The Supreme Court also ruled that the
chairperson should not have participated in the decision-making after he had
been found to be biased against ANZ. The Supreme Court referred the matter
back to the MIC to reconsider ANZ's licence application afresh.

In
July 2005, the MIC rejected ANZ's registration application again. ANZ
appealed this decision to the High Court, and in February 2006 the High
Court ruled that the MIC must reconsider its July 2005 decision not to grant
ANZ a licence.

ANZ has still not been granted a licence by the
MIC.

Discussion of freedom of expression challenges in the state party
report

The AIPPAThe state report comments that it believes there is a
"negative perception around the impact of the provisions of the AIPPA, which
is said to be a 'draconian' piece of legislation enacted with a view to
restricting the citizens' freedom of expression." (p.xxxv)

There is,
in fact, wide-ranging support for the statement that the AIPPA is a
draconian piece of legislation which disproportionately represses civil
liberties. For example, Dr Eddie Zvobgo, chairman of the Parliamentary Legal
Committee, stated when the AIPPA was introduced into Parliament in
2002: I can say without equivocation that this Bill in its original form
was the most calculated and determined assault on our liberties guaranteed
by the Constitution, in the twenty years I have served as Cabinet
Minister.

Similarly, the African Commission has described the AIPPA as an
example of legislation used to "control, manipulate public opinion and limit
civil liberties."(115) Furthermore, the Commission has called for "the
repeal or amendment of repressive legislation" including AIPPA, POSA and the
Broadcasting Services Act.(116)

The UN Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
Abid Hussain, expressed deep concern about the AIPPA in January 2002, three
months before its enactment. He appealed to the Zimbabwean authorities to
reconsider the provisions of the Bill and not to proceed to pass it into
law.(117) His appeal was not heeded by the government.

In response to
the challenge that the AIPPA is perceived to be a draconian piece of
legislation, the state report submits that the AIPPA was a necessary
response to the architects of regime change who were exploiting loopholes in
the old legislation on information to subvert public opinion and undermine
state security (p. xxxv).

However, the AIPPA was in fact enacted in order
to control the growing criticism of the ruling party, ZANU-PF, since 2000.
The AIPPA provides a number of mechanisms to intimidate and silence critical
journalists and newspapers, both in terms of their permission to practice
and the content of their reporting.

The Media and Information
CommissionThe state report notes that there have been criticisms that the
Media and Information Commission's (MIC) registration process is politicized
(p.xxxv).

The failure to ensure the independence of the MIC is a major
weakness of the AIPPA. The independence of a regulatory body from political
and commercial influence is a key tenet in international standards governing
media regulation and the right of freedom of expression.

Members of
the AIPPA are appointed directly by the Minister for Information and
Publicity, and the Minister exercises significant powers of dismissal and
control over their terms of office. There have also been a number of
incidents which demonstrate that the MIC is, in fact,
politicized.

For example, there is the well-publicized case of the MIC
refusing to issue a licence to the ANZ Group, which published the only
independent newspapers in Zimbabwe at the time the MIC was established. The
Supreme Court ruled that the Chairperson of the MIC should not have ruled on
ANZ's licence application due to the existence of bias against ANZ. This
battle between the MIC and the courts has been ongoing since 2002 - with the
MIC refusing to reconstitute a fresh panel to consider ANZ's licence
application anew. At the time of its closure, the ANZ newspaper The Daily
News had a circulation of nearly 1 million readers per day - 59 per cent of
the market.

The heavy-handed punitive treatment of privately-owned media
by the MIC is also an indication of the politicization of the regulatory
body. For example, the MIC cancelled the licence of The Tribune newspaper in
June 2004 after its publishing group, African Tribune Newspapers, failed to
notify the MIC immediately of a change in ownership, when its management and
senior editors bought the publishing company from Africa Media Group. In
February 2006, the MIC suspended the newly-founded The Weekly Times for one
year. The reason given was that it violated the AIPPA by misrepresenting
information on its application by promising to make social issues a priority
but instead focusing on political advocacy. The MIC threatened to ban The
Financial Gazette in January 2006 if it did not retract a story which
queried the independence of the MIC. On 29 January 2006, the MIC refused to
renew the accreditation of 15 journalists working for the Zimbabwe
Independent until the newspaper retracted a similar story.

In
response to criticism in this area, the state report contends that the
registration of media organizations is carried out according to the law and
not political inclinations. The state report submits that the failure to
register one media house (this is the first time the state report has
referred, even tangentially, to the ongoing denial of a licence to the ANZ
Group) should not be used as a yardstick to measure the state's capacity to
uphold freedom of expression (p.xxxv).

The MIC's failure to provide a
licence to ANZ is, however, illustrative of the structural weaknesses of the
AIPPA in terms of protecting and upholding the right of freedom of
expression. The decision-making processes of the MIC are not accountable in
a manner necessary for the protection and promotion of media
diversity.

Licensing of foreign journalistsThe state report notes as
a third "challenge" that there have been criticisms that the process for
licensing foreign journalists is also politicized (p.xxxv). While the state
report uses the AIPPA term "accreditation" of journalists, this term is used
incorrectly, as the AIPPA is engaged in licensing and not
accreditation.

Again, this criticism is in fact well founded given the
treatment of foreign journalists reported in the domestic and international
media. The right to freedom of expression is expressly guaranteed
"regardless of frontiers", and foreign journalists are entitled to be
treated in a fair manner and to be allowed to perform their role in the
public interest.

The exclusion of foreign media from reporting on
Zimbabwe has intensified since 2001. In 2001, the government deported three
foreign journalists, branded others as "terrorists", banned the BBC from
entering the country and blocked CNN broadcasts. As soon as the AIPPA came
into effect in 2002, the authorities sought to apply it to the foreign
media. In 2002, the MIC refused to renew work permits for an AFP journalist
and the bureau chief. By 2003, no foreign journalists were allowed to reside
in Zimbabwe.In 2005, all BBC and ABC journalists were denied accreditation
to report on the parliamentary election in March 2005. Swedish journalist
Fredrik Sperling, who obtained accreditation, was arrested the day after the
election after he filmed a large farm expropriated by the Zimbabwean
government and later occupied by a relative of President
Mugabe.

Further restrictions on freedom of expressionA significant
number of other challenges to the realization of the right of freedom of
expression have arisen which are not referred to in the state report. In
particular, the raft of repressive legislation which has been introduced
since 2000 has resulted in a situation where the right of freedom of
expression is being systemically violated. Much of this legislation is
characterized by broad and unaccountable discretions afforded to public
officials and political representatives. The drafting is frequently loose
and ambiguous, which provides substantial scope for misuse of the
legislation, including the illegitimate harassment and intimidation of the
private print media.

The impact of the repressive legislation on free
expression can be summarized as follows. Utilizing this legislation, the
Zimbabwean government has: a.. harassed, intimidated and arrested
media workers; b.. imposed an oppressive system of conditional licensing
upon journalists and newspapers; c.. heavily censored the content of
the print media; d.. ordered the closure of several independent
newspapers; e.. initiated oppressive litigation against newspapers and
opposition politicians; f.. obtained a majority shareholding in
Zimbabwe Mirror Newspaper group through its state security agency;
g.. continuously maintained the state broadcasting monopoly, despite it
being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2000; h..
imposed travel bans on opposition members and human rights activists;
i.. excluded foreign journalists from Zimbabwe; and j.. intimidated and
prevented foreign radio stations from broadcasting into
Zimbabwe.

Restrictions on broadcastingThe regulatory regime for
broadcasting allows the continuation of the state broadcasting monopoly as
well as failing to promote diversity in the broadcast sector, as required by
Principle V of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in
Africa.

Specific aspects of the broadcast regulatory framework breach
Article 9 of the African Charter: a.. the role of the Minister in
overseeing the exercise of powers by the Board of the Broadcasting Authority
of Zimbabwe (BAZ), in appointing members of the Board and in setting the
terms and conditions of office for those members; b.. the unfettered
discretion given to the BAZ to issue a call for broadcast licence
applications; c.. the lack of clear provisions in the BSA establishing a
licensing authority and the retention by the Minister of the power to decide
on broadcast licence applications despite a Supreme Court ruling that this
power is unconstitutional; d.. the restrictions placed on who can
apply for a broadcasting licence; e.. the punitive strict liability
offences for broadcasting without a licence; f.. the limit of one
licence per medium for national free-to-air broadcasting; g.. the
onerous and extensive terms and conditions attached to a broadcast
licence; h.. the provisions regulating the amendment, suspension and
cancellation of a licence; and i.. the directions and conditions made
as to the content of broadcast programming by private
broadcasters.

Some foreign broadcasters have attempted to "broadcast in"
to Zimbabwe despite being unable to apply for a broadcasting licence from
the BAZ, as no call for radio broadcasting licences has ever been made. The
experience of these foreign broadcasters shows some of the practices used by
the Zimbabwean government in violation of the right of freedom of
expression.

In August 2002, Voice of the People (VoP), which broadcasts
into Zimbabwe on short wave, had its Harare office bombed. The police made
no arrests, did not issue a report on the investigations, and no one was
arrested in connection with the bombing. In December 2005, the Zimbabwean
government tried again to silence VoP. On 15 December, the police raided
their Harare office, confiscating equipment and files. This served to end
VoP's broadcasts, which came from outside Zimbabwe. The Director and six of
the VoP trustees were charged with broadcasting without a licence, which
carries a potential two-year term of imprisonment. Eventually, after almost
a year, the charges were dismissed by the court.

South West Radio
Africa (SWRA), staffed by Zimbabwean journalists living in exile, broadcasts
into Zimbabwe from the UK on shortwave radio. In the lead-up to the March
2005 elections, SWRA had its signal jammed so that it could no longer
broadcast into Zimbabwe via shortwave. It took several months for SWRA to
find an alternate path, which prevented it from providing information and
news on political and economic issues prior to the election. SWRA has faced
ongoing jamming throughout 2006 as well.

On 18 January 2006, journalist
Sydney Saize was arrested and accused of writing a false story for the US
government-funded Voice of America. He was released without charge after
being held in police custody for three nights.

Taking over independent
newspapersThe Zimbabwean government has recently sought to impose direct
control over independent newspapers through acquiring a majority
shareholding. In 2005, Zimbabwe's state security agency, the Central
Intelligence Organization (CIO), engaged in a takeover of the publications
of the independent publishing house, Zimbabwe Mirror Group Newspapers
(ZMGN), which publishes the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The
Financial Gazette.

In August 2005, the Zimbabwe Independent reported that
The Financial Gazette had been taken over 100 per cent by the CIO, while
Ibbo Mandaza (the Chief Executive Officer of ZMGN) had ceded 70 per cent of
his shareholding to a group of CIO investors.

In October 2005, Ibbo
Mandaza was suspended from his post following the takeover. He approached
the High Court, which ruled that he should be reinstated. In May 2006, Ibbo
Mandaza filed a further application in the High Court, alleging contempt of
court by the company's directors for failing to reinstate
him.

Restrictions on freedom of movementPresident Mugabe, speaking at
the conference of his ZANU-PF party on 10 December 2005, vowed to take
"stern action" against NGOs and critics of his government. The conference
later adopted a resolution welcoming moves to seize the passports of people
"who go around demonizing the country".

The Zimbabwean government has
used its power to impose travel bans on human rights activists and people
critical of the government.

For example, a travel ban was imposed on
Trevor Ncube, the publisher of Zimbabwe's independent newspapers, the
Zimbabwe Independent and the Sunday Standard, in December 2005. The UK-based
newspaper, The Guardian, reported on 15 December 2005 that, according to a
list seen by Trevor Ncube in the Buluwayo immigration office, 15 other
prominent critics of the government also had their passports confiscated
pursuant to the constitutional amendments under the Constitution of Zimbabwe
Amendment (No 17) Act 2005. It was reported by www.newzimbabwe.com that these 15 people
included opposition politicians, businessmen and journalists known to be
critical of the government. According to Amnesty International, they
included opposition politician Paul Themba Nyathi and trade unionist Raymond
Majongwe.(118)

Restrictions on human rights defendersPOSA is
frequently used to intimidate and silence civil society organizations
critical of the government. For example, Dr Frances Lovemore, Medical
Director of the Amani Trust, an organization focusing on torture and other
human rights violations, was arrested in August 2002 following allegations
that the Trust was contravening POSA by "publishing or communicating false
statements prejudicial to the State". The offices of Amani Trust were raided
and searched by police. Dr Lovemore was released the day after her arrest.
In November, the government accused Amani Trust of threatening peace and
warned that arrests would be made. Shortly after, the Amani Trust closed its
offices.

ConclusionSince the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
emerged as a political opposition party in 1999, the Zimbabwean government
has pursued every measure possible to prevent a change of government from
occurring through the democratic process. As independent newspapers began to
publish details of the failure of political, social and economic policies, a
major onslaught on any expression independent of the government's mandate
was pursued. This was effected by shutting down independent newspapers,
introducing highly repressive legislation governing access to information
and regulation of the print media, and preventing any private broadcaster
from obtaining a licence to broadcast, despite eligible and willing
prospective broadcasters. The Zimbabwean government has ignored clear
directives from the Supreme Court to restore respect for the right of
freedom of expression and has harassed and persecuted individuals who dare
to speak out. The free expression blackout has been tightly held in place
for the entirety of the period of this report and there is no indication of
change in the near future, despite repeated appeals from regional and
international bodies.

About ARTICLE 19

Global campaign for free
expressionARTICLE 19 is an independent international human rights
organization, whose mandate is the protection and promotion of the right of
freedom of expression globally. ARTICLE 19 has an extensive programme of
activities in Africa and in Zimbabwe in particular. They have been working
with partner organizations in Zimbabwe for over ten years, seeking to
challenge the repressive legal and regulatory framework for the
media.

(1)
Although the government claimed that the demolished structures were
"illegal", Human Rights Watch found that many legal housing and business
structures were also destroyed during the evictions campaign. See Human
Rights Watch, "Clear the Filth: Mass Evictions and Demolitions in Zimbabwe",
A Human Rights Watch Background Briefing, 11 September 2005.

(2) UN
Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Mrs Anna Kajumulo
Tibaijuka, Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe to Assess the
Scope and Impact of Operation Murambatsvina, 22 July 2005 [online], http://www.unhabitat.org/documents/ZimbabweReport.pdf
(accessed 22 November 2005).

(15) Nevertheless, only
59 per cent of farm workers' children attended primary school in 1997,
compared to 79 per cent of children in communal areas and 89 per cent of
urban children. Catholic Institute for International Relations, Land, Power
and Poverty: Farm workers and the crisis in Zimbabwe, London, 2000,
p.23.

(16) Dede Amanor-Wilks, Zimbabwe's Farm Workers and the New
Constitution, 12 February 2000, available on the Africa Policy Information
Center home page, www.africapolicy.org.

(19)
Section 18(1) of the Constitution stipulates that every person is entitled
to the protection of the law. Section 18(9) of the Constitution says that
every person is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent court. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by
section 79B.

(20) Although the government claimed that the demolished
structures were "illegal", Human Rights Watch found that many legal housing
and business structures were also destroyed during the evictions campaign.
See Human Rights Watch, "Clear the Filth: Mass Evictions and Demolitions in
Zimbabwe", A Human Rights Watch Background Briefing, 11 September
2005.

(41) Dato Param Cumaraswamy, the former
UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers said: "The
provision of adequate protection to judges and lawyers when their safety is
threatened is a basic prerequisite for safeguarding the rule of law. This is
simply fundamental, in order to guarantee the right to a fair trial by an
independent and impartial tribunal and the protection of human rights. The
apparent failure to do so in this case represents a serious threat to the
independent judicial system in Zimbabwe." (United Nations Press release, 2
September 2002).

(52)
Communication 129/94, Nigeria v. Civil Liberties Organization and
Communications 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dawda K. Jawara v.Gambia para 74 where
the Commission held that: "By ousting the competence of the ordinary courts
to handle human rights cases, and ignoring court judgments, the Gambian
military government demonstrated clearly that the courts were not
independent. This is a violation of Article 26 of the Charter." Reported in
the 13th Annual Report of the Commission 99/2000.

(59) He noted
that the Media and Information Commission (MIC) was improperly constituted
and could not issue a certificate of registration to ANZ and that the MIC
should be properly constituted and issue ANZ with a certificate of
registration.

(60) He said the order should remain in force and effect
notwithstanding the filing of any notice of appeal against it by the
MIC.

(64) Some estimates place the number of teachers who have
fled Zimbabwe (mainly for political reasons) at no less than 10,000. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4045805.stm

(71) Public reports have documented
that ZANU-PF has engaged in widespread acts of violence, see for example
Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Monthly Political Violence Reports at
http://www.hrforumzim.com.

(76) See
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT770372005?open&of=ENG-ZWE.

(77)
Executive Summary of the Report of the African Commission Fact-finding
Mission to Zimbabwe, 24th to 28th June 2002.

(78) See UN Human Rights
Committee General Comment No. 29, para 11.

(79) See
http://www.defendingwomen-defendingrights.org/zimbabwe_further_harassment.php
and http://www.ibanet.org/iba/article.cfm?article=101.

(80) See
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR460172006?open&of=ENG-394 or
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR460192006?open&of=ENG-ZWE.

(81)
See http://www.ibanet.org/iba/article.cfm?article=95.

(82) See Human
Rights Committee General Comment No. 29, para 16.

(83) Communication
129/94, Nigeria v. Civil Liberties Organization and Communications 147/95
and 149/96, Sir Dawda K. Jawara v.Gambia para 74 where the Commission held
that: "By ousting the competence of the ordinary courts to handle human
rights cases, and ignoring court judgments, the Gambian military government
demonstrated clearly that the courts were not independent. This is a
violation of Article 26 of the Charter." Reported in the 13th Annual Report
of the Commission 99/2000.

(85) For a detailed survey of the problem of torture in Zimbabwe
see REDRESS (June 2006), Torture in Zimbabwe, Past and Present: Prevention,
Punishment, Reparation?
http://www.redress.org/publications/Amani2005.pdf.

(98) The other arrested war veterans who had originally
been arrested with Cain Nkala were tried and acquitted of Patrick
Nabanyama's murder, on the basis that they had indeed kidnapped him but then
handed him over to Nkala. Nkala was dead, Nabanyama's body had never been
found, and there was no evidence to link them to Nabanyama's death. They
were never subsequently charged with kidnapping, despite their
admissions.

(99) The State v Sonny Nicholas Masera and Five Others, HH
50-2004, 2 March 2004.

(100) See Testimony to United States Congress
House Committee on International Relations 10 March 2004; Amnesty
International Report 26 June 2003; Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Alert
17 January 2003; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Political Violence Report,
January 2003.

(101) Zimbabwe Financial Gazette 7 and 14 October 2004;
Zimbabwe Independent, 19 November 2004; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum,
Political Violence Report, September 2004. The newspaper that broke the
story said the youths were targeted as a result of internal party struggles
surrounding a notorious war veteran leader, Jabulani Sibanda.

(103)
One recent example is S v Reza and Another HH - 2- 04 (Chinhengo and
Makakarau JJ) where the appellants were two policemen convicted of assault
with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, after assaulting a suspect with a
sjambok (a hard leather whip) on the soles of his feet. The appeal judges
held that the appellants' act fell within the realm of torture as defined in
international law.

Pressure grows for Zimbabwe crisis talks

Yahoo News

By ANGUS SHAW,
Associated Press Writer

HARARE, Zimbabwe - Momentum is building to start
South African-brokered talks to resolve to resolve the political and
economic turmoil that has left Zimbabwe impoverished and shunned by the
West, opposition officials say.

But the opposition Movement for
Democratic Change has again refused demands that before talks proceed, it
recognize President Robert Mugabe as the nation's legitimately elected
leader. That condition stalled two previous initiatives.The opposition
alleges it has been robbed at parliamentary and presidential races by
violent intimidation of voters and ballot rigging. The opposition also has
demanded the repeal of sweeping media and security laws, electoral reforms
and an end to state-orchestrated political violence.

Officials said this
week both main opposition parties were now considering setting aside their
demands in order to return to negotiations.

The officials asked not to be
identified. South Africa has insisted on a news blackout.

South
African President Thabo Mbeki, appointed in March by the Southern African
Development Community to mediate on Zimbabwe, was given until the end of
June to return with concrete proposals on narrowing the wide differences
between Mugabe's ruling party and the opposition Movement for Democratic
Change.

"The situation here is impacting on the whole region and
President Mbeki has a deadline to meet," said one official.

Mugabe's
fellow African leaders have heard repeated calls to do more to press Mugabe
to embark on reforms. But at the summit at which Mbeki - who has long
advocated quiet diplomacy over confrontation with Mugabe - was appointed to
mediate, the Southern African Development Community voiced full support for
Mugabe.

At another regional summit in Kenya this week, Mugabe had harsh
words for his opposition and his critics in the West, and was applauded by
fellow African leaders.

Earlier this month, Mbeki sent a delegation
headed by Sydney Mufamadi, a Cabinet minister, to Harare for talks with
Mugabe.

Mufamadi did not meet with opposition leaders in Harare, but
several top aides of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of one opposition faction,
and rival faction leader Arthur Mutambara have shuttled to and from South
Africa in recent weeks.

There were suggestions for at least initial
talks in June for Mbeki to deliver to regional leaders, he said.

No
comment was immediately available from the ruling party.

Ronnie Mamoepa,
South African Foreign Affairs spokesman, would not confirm any details of
the mediation process.

"We are not going to comment except to say that
mediations remain on course," he said.

JJ clashes with Zimbabwean
minister

Ghana Web

Friday, 25 May 2007

Former President Jerry John Rawlings and Zimbabwe Minister of
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Hon. Patrick Chinamasa, on
Wednesday this week, vehemently opposed each other on current political
issues in Zimbabwe.

The former Ghanaian Head of State suggested to the
Zimbabwean Minister and his entourage to apologize to the people of Zimbabwe
and others for troubles that have come up as a result of President Mugabe's
land reform policy.

The ex-president was of the view that, in the land
reforms, it was possible that toes were stepped on especially considering
the manner in which the policy was implemented.

But Minister Patrick
Chinamasa totally disagreed and stated that they owed no apology to
anybody.

According to him, what the Zimbabwean government was seeking
from the African Union Chairman, President J.A Kufuor and his team was a
defence of African countries so that sanctions that have been imposed on
Zimbabwe are lifted to enable them access credit from international
markets.

"We are not apologizing for anything. If there had not been any
resistance against us by going to European capitals campaigning against us
and lobbying the British not to own up to their commitment that would not
have happened," he said, adding "clearly they must realize the consequences
of resisting; is not in their interest. So we have no apologies at all," he
said.

The Minister made the observation when he led a team to pay a
courtesy call on the former President, at his Ridge
residence.

"Somehow, we are not making much ammunition from the fact
that, this is one man, who has dealt with the most repugnant policy of the
past as far as land acquisition issues are concerned. This is one man who
has stood up and actually fought against imperialist policy. Admittedly,
some aspects of it were a little bit too painful in terms of the manner in
which it was approached. I believe that can be apologized for, for we all
make mistakes," were the words of the former president.

Minister
Chinamasa, who was accompanied by H.E. Ambassador Musaka, Zimbabwean
Ambassador to Ghana; Mr. David Mangota, Secretary for Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs; Mr. Water Tapjumaneyi, from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs; Mr. Wayne Vudzijena, Ministry of Home Affairs; Mrs. Monilla
Kuhenee, Ministry of Justice and Mr. Jeremiah Mukota, Deputy Ambassador,
further explained to the ex-President why there was no need to render an
apology to the people of his country but rather stressed the need for the
lifting of sanctions.

According to him, the Zimbabwean government
remained a principled one and was prepared to accord everybody equal rights
irrespective of where one came from.

He stated that it was
unfortunate that people who had refused to apply for the re-allocation of
lands were now crying all over.

Hon. Patrick Chinamasa who again
disagreed with the ex-president over the latter's assertions that perhaps,
the land reform policy could result in the whites leaving Zimbabwe with all
their scientific competence, said sanctions should be lifted; "we don't need
the largesse from the IMF or the World Bank. For the past 10 years we have
been operating on our own resources without any financial support, which
demonstrates the resilience of our economy. We have been pummeled as far as
we are concerned and all that we are asking for is the lifting of the
sanctions".

The visit which afforded all the members the opportunity to
openly discuss matters saw the Zimbabwean Minister argue that his government
was battling seriously with the issues of de-colonisation and charged the AU
under the chairmanship of President Kufuor to ensure that the liberation
process, which was started some years back, would be completed.

Jerry
Rawlings, after listening attentively to the explanations from the Minister
whom he consistently referred to as "Chief" took a swipe at the Western
Media for blacking out the other side of the story.

"Thank you. But the
point is that some of these things are kept from some of us. Maybe, some of
us are speaking from the perception of the Western Media who are against
you.

"Or maybe, this is where a lot more effort had been made but I am
saying that recently, the Zimbabwean government began to make some moves
with regard to what they perceived as areas of rejection, as far as
acquisition of land was concerned."

Before he proceeded, the Minister
of Justice interjected and said, "What we are saying is that, the objective
of the struggles must be realized. We did it by nationalizing our farm
lands," adding that any Zimbabwean was eligible for allocation of land
irrespective. of whether the person is white or black. "If you are a black
or white citizen you would all queue and make the application," he
said.

Continuing, Flt. Lt. Rawlings who had with him, his wife, Nana
Konadu Agyeman-Rawlings; Mr. James Victor Gbeho, former Foreign Minister and
Mr. Emmanuel Victor Smith, his Special Assistant who is also the Managing
Editor of Weekly Standard, said, "from what we are seeing under this
unipolar exercise of power, the right of might under the leadership of some
of these Western Powers is actually made to supercede the philosophy of the
might of right."

Describing President Mugabe as a good leader for,
"his sense of patriotism," he said perhaps some of the scenes that were
captured by the Western media and broadcast were designed to demonize the
policies of the Zimbabwean President.

After launching his usual
attacks on British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W.
Bush, he said, "what I want to say is that the fight against neo-colonialism
appears to be a more Herculean task than the fight against colonialism. It
appears we have got a long way to go."

He did not also mince words on
what he thought was wrong on the part of the Pope and the outgoing Nigerian
President, Olusegun Obasanjo.

Zimbabwe crisis leads to moral decay

Judith Melby, an
Africa specialist with aid agency Christian Aid, says that Zimbabwe's economic
and political crisis has also led to a moral decline.

Many workers are unable to afford to get
buses to work

"How do you tell your children it is important to get an
education when jobs - if you are lucky enough to get one - have worthless
salaries," asks one Zimbabwean mother.

"They know that a quick deal on the black market can
give them the same amount as a month's salary."

Like many people in Zimbabwe, she did not wish to be
identified.

Students milling about in the sunshine at the
University of Zimbabwe don't have much faith in degrees either.

Tuition fees increase every term and students find it
impossible to pay even for notebooks, much less books.

You have to go on the black market in order to pay
for all this.

"It is so hypocritical," said one young student.

"All those people in power received free education
under [former white minority leader] Ian Smith or from the missionaries. They
don't care that we can't afford the education; also all the good teachers have
left. Is it any surprise we look for other ways to get money?"

Worthless currency

The government has warned there will be wheat
shortages in the coming months because farmers have only planted 10% of the
required winter wheat crop.

Zimbabwe's hyper-inflation of 3,700% is destroying
the economy.

We have lived in a society for a long time now that has tended to
reward political criminals

Jonah GokovahChristian
Alliance

Unemployment is already more than 80%, while average incomes
are less than $1 a day and life expectancy is just 36 years.

The official rate for $1 is 250 Zimbabwe dollars but
on the black market $1 can net you more than 40,000 Zimbabwe dollars.

That's fine if you can get your hands on foreign
exchange, but what happens if you can't?

"I earn 200,000 [Zimbabwe] dollars a month," said a
security guard.

"But cooking oil costs 90,000 and I still haven't
paid for food, rent, clothes, school fees and transport to work. How am I
supposed to live?"

The worthless currency is also one of the reasons
people are fleeing the country; by some estimates up to one-third of Zimbabweans
now live abroad.

"It is impossible to find farm workers," complains a
farmer outside Bulawayo in the south of the country.

"They prefer to chance their luck in South Africa
where at least the money is worth something. Even if it is dangerous crossing
the border and they risk being deported back home."

'Divided society'

The Christian Alliance is an organisation, supported
by Christian Aid, which is seeking to find a peaceful transition to democracy.

It wants to participate in the mediation efforts by
South African President Thabo Mbeki.

Those without jobs, or family support,
have few other options

In March, the governments in southern Africa entrusted him
with the job of opening a dialogue between the government and the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change.

But the alliance sees the restoration of traditional
values as just as important as the reform of government institutions.

"We are a very divided society," said Christian
Alliance coordinator Jonah Gokovah.

"As a result we have become very suspicious of each
other. People are finding all kinds of ways of surviving and that is turning a
large number of our people into criminals."

This struggle for survival corrupts everyone.

The security services have infiltrated opposition
groups and informing on others is common.

"We have lived in a society for a long time now that
has tended to reward political criminals," Mr Gokova said.

"Those who engage in violence need to be punished
openly and those who are seeking to promote peaceful coexistence need to be
rewarded for those actions."

The director of an aid agency, who also did not want
to be identified, said she felt she was ridiculed when she travelled abroad.

"They think that if you are still in Zimbabwe you
must be stupid; they say anyone intelligent would have left long ago."

And she worries any change may come too late for a
return to the Zimbabwe she knew when she was a child, a Zimbabwe that cherished
and rewarded education and hard graft.

War veterans break up church meeting

Zim Online

Saturday 26 May 2007

By Nqobizitha
Khumalo

BULAWAYO - Armed war veterans last week violently broke up a
meeting called by the Christian Alliance, a coalition of churches fighting
for political change in Zimbabwe, to launch a women's branch in the Midlands
town of Kwekwe.

President Robert Mugabe's ruling ZANU PF party has in
the past seven years used veterans of Zimbabwe's 1970s liberation war as its
foot soldiers to harass and crush the ruling party's political
opponents.

The war veterans, who were armed with axes and knobkerries,
stormed the Roman Catholic Church Parish in Redcliff and ordered that the
Christian Alliance should not proceed with plans to launch a women's branch
in the area.

They also threatened to kidnap Father Mapfumo, who
presides over the Catholic Church in Redcliff working class suburb if he
allowed the group to proceed with the launch in his church.

The war
veterans accused the Christian Alliance leadership of plotting together with
the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) to overthrow
Mugabe, in power since Zimbabwe's independence from Britain 27 years
ago.

"War veterans disrupted the launch and
threatened local pastors with death if they allowed the launch to proceed.
We cancelled the event because they were threatening to beat up women who
would attend the launch.

"They also threatened Father Mapfumo and said he
should not dare allow the launch to take place in his church," Sibanda
said.

Police spokesperson Wayne Bvudzijena could not be reached for
comment on the matter.

The war veterans have since 2000 been a
virtual law unto itself after they spearheaded the violent seizure of white
farms as part of Mugabe's efforts to redistribute land to landless
blacks.

Scores of white farmers and over a hundred supporters of the MDC
party were killed during the political disturbances, sparking a waver of
international condemnation for Mugabe's government.

Mugabe has since
last March stepped up a crackdown on the opposition and other voices of
dissension ahead of key presidential and parliamentary elections next year
that political analysts have said he and his party could lose. -
ZimOnline

African Commission
must urgently tackle Zimbabwe torture - REDRESS

zimbabwejournalists.com

25th May 2007 23:20 GMT

By a
Correspondent

REDRESS, the international NGO working to obtain
justice and reparation for torture survivors, today calls on the African
Commission for Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) to firmly address
Zimbabwe's torture record, which is rapidly spiraling out of
control.

Recently, human rights lawyers in particular have been targeted,
including Zimbabwe Law Society President Ms Beatrice Mtetwa who earlier this
month was severely beaten by police when she andother human rights
defenders were participating in a peaceful protest outside the Harare High
Court.

"This blatant and public attack puts torture into the spotlight
and cannot be ignored," said Carla Ferstman, REDRESS' Director.Ms.
Mtetwa and her colleagues are the latest victims of an alarming new trend of
violence.

Starting in March 2007, we have seen the open serious assaults
on high profile MDC leaders including Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, as well as the
abduction and torture of students, trade unionists and journalists. Beatings
and other forms of torture are no longer only taking place behind closed
doors but are now deliberately unleashed inpublic.

The ACHPR is
well placed to act and must send a clear message that torture is
unacceptable in all circumstances.

The latest trend must be seen in the
context of the deteriorating human rights situation over the last decade. In
a recent Report produced by REDRESS and four other leading international
humanrights organizations - ZIMBABWE: Human Rights in Crisis - REDRESS
analyses the endemic nature of torture in Zimbabwe and shows how torture
survivors have little if any realistic prospect of obtaining reparations
under the present regime:

"The Zimbabwe Government continues to be
responsible for widespread and systematic human rights violations, including
torture, and there is little sign of either a decline in violations or of
any serious action to investigate allegations and prosecute offenders" said
REDRESS' Director.

"There have been numerous reports of victims who have
tried to report an abuse to the police, only to be detained and further
abused by the police themselves," she said.

The REDRESS chapter
includes several high-profile case studies where torture survivors were
subjected to severe beatings, electric shocks, water immersion, or falanga,
including journalists,opposition activists (grass-roots workers as well as
an MP and human rights lawyer) and even Zanu-PF supporters involved in
factional disputes.

The Report ZIMBABWE: Human Rights in Crisis, was
submitted this month as a Shadow Report to the ACHPR meeting in Ghana from
16-30 May 2007, in response to Zimbabwe lodging its first periodicState
Party report on the status of human rights protection to the Commission
since 1996.

The fact that five international human rights organisations
have come together to produce this Shadow Report illustrates the gravity of
abuse, contrary to the view of the Zimbabwe Government in its State Party
report that it has shown commitment to the development and protection of
human rights.

In seeking to ensure that all the information gathered
is made available to the ACHPR to determine the status of human rights
violations in Zimbabwe in the last ten years, the Shadow Report addresses
the following key areas: Human rights violations during the land ownership
reform programme and Operation Murambatsvina (the forcible clearing of
slums) (Human Rights Watch); Attacks on the rule of law (International Bar
Association); Torture and ill treatment (REDRESS); Violation of the rights
of freedom of association and assembly (Amnesty International);Violations of
the right of freedom of expression (ARTICLE 19).

Blindly Ruling Out the Options

Business Day
(Johannesburg)

OPINION25 May 2007Posted to the web 25 May
2007

Sean MullerJohannesburg

MUCH has been said recently,
since the assault on Movement for Democratic Change leaders, about SA's
foreign policy on Zimbabwe. Consensus in the media appears to be tending
toward approval of Southern African Development Community- (SADC-) supported
talks. The justification for this, however, seems tenuous. It is not as if
President Robert Mugabe has not committed himself to talks before, only to
renege on the agreement. His public statements since the SADC meeting in Dar
es Salaam, combined with reports of increased human rights abuses, suggest
that the pressure that was applied behind closed doors is not having much
impact, and neither is it likely to. "So what?" say the critics scornfully.
"What should we do, invade? Cut off the power supply? There is no precedent
for such actions by a legitimate African government against a sovereign
state." Actually, there is. At the height of Idi Amin's murderous regime and
after much provocation, one of the heroes of the African independence
movement, Julius Nyerere, sent Tanzanian forces into Uganda, and Amin was
overthrown. True, he was replaced by Milton Obote, who was by all accounts
not a great improvement, but on the other hand we do not know how much worse
Amin would have become.

In addition, while Nyerere was provoked by
cross-border attacks

and we have not been, it is quite reasonable to
argue that a flood of millions of refugees across a border is also
provocation of sorts.

The refugees are, of course, merely the symptom of
the deeper problem. Yet instead of attempting to assuage the symptoms while
attacking the root cause, current policy does the opposite. Instead of
dealing humanely with refugees, it effectively attacks them (putting them in
repatriation centres, exposing them to dangerous illegal border crossings
and depriving them of even vaguely certain livelihoods), while mollycoddling
the administration that is the core of the infection.

But perhaps we
should still rule out invasion on pragmatic grounds; given the one botched
incident in Lesotho we certainly do not seem to have the capacity for such
an operation anyway.

What about severing all economic and infrastructure
relations and support with the Mugabe regime? "Oh no," say the critics,
"that will just hurt the Zimbabwean people." But what if the Zimbabwean
people are prepared to pay that price?

During apartheid, this claim
-- that sanctions would "hurt innocent people" -- was often thrown in the
face of antiapartheid activists campaigning for an end to international
relations with the apartheid government.

In the mid-1980s, Mark
Orkin, the first head of Statistics SA after 1994, led a team of researchers
whose express aim was to get the opinion of "the people" on
sanctions.

They did this through a carefully designed survey across
various regions of the country to get as close as possible to the views of
the majority. Their finding: the vast majority of respondents supported
sanctions aimed at bringing down the apartheid regime.

Two things
stand out here. First, that once again we have a precedent -- contrary to
the claims of the "quiet diplomacy" naysayers. Second, we might pause for a
moment and ask ourselves what might happen if someone tried to conduct a
similar kind of survey in Zimbabwe right now -- whatever the findings might
be. The answer is that it would likely not be pleasant, if the brutal
attacks on all forms of dissent and free media are anything to go by. What
does that say about what is happening in Zimbabwe relative to what happened
in apartheid SA?

The critics of more forthright policies on Zimbabwe are
merely one consequence of a crude reactionary element in post-independence
Africa which opposes every view put forward by "the west". The ironic result
of this is that as Africans we continue to define our policies by the views
of the developed world, rather than striking out on an independent,
principled path of our own.

Contrary to what you might be thinking,
this article is not arguing for either an invasion of, or a thoughtless
severing of ties with, the Zimbabwe controlled by Mugabe. What it aims to
demonstrate is the ignorance and hypocrisy of those who now would casually
dismiss all alternatives to the current failed engagement -- and let us be
clear, it has failed.

They refuse even to see the nightmare that has been
visited upon the Zimbabwean people, and so are blind to the real
possibilities -- however distorted -- for a future.

Muller is a
masters student in applied economics and Public Policy Partnership Fellow at
the University of Cape Town. He writes in his personal capacity.

As Long as Crisis Continues, Border Jumping Will

HARARE, May 25 (IPS) - Attempts to convince Zimbabweans to stay
in their country are futile as long as the political and economic crisis
continues, say activists and politicians.

The International
Organisation for Migration (IOM) has launched a campaign in Zimbabwe to
dissuade the youth from crossing the border to neighbouring
countries.

But Nicholas Mukaronda, coordinator of the Crisis In
Zimbabwe Coalition based in South Africa, said that economic stabilisation
is the only lasting solution to migration dynamics facing the southern
African nation.

''Unless the people are assured of a stable economic
situation, nothing will lure exiled youths back,'' Mukaronda told
IPS.

Wilson Khumbula, an opposition politician, also said that especially
young men will continue to desert their communities for neighbouring
countries.

''Girls are turning to prostitution and young men are crossing
the borders illegally because of the economic hardships and political
retribution. Unless these fundamental issues are addressed, we will see more
border-crossing,'' added Khumbula.

Moses Churu, a 30-year-old man who
was recently deported, confirmed what Mukaronda and Khumbula said: ''I am
trying to find my way back to South Africa. I know the risks but I do not
have any choice. Things are hard here.''

According to IOM statistics,
25 percent of deported youths unsuccessfully applied for passports. Some 28
percent stated that the high cost of a visa deterred them from applying for
one.

Acquiring a South African visa is a far-fetched idea for many as one
has to produce traveller's cheques worth 2,000 South African rand (about 285
US dollars).

It is also becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary
Zimbabweans to get passports. The registry temporarily suspended the
processing of passports last year due to high costs.

IOM opened a
youth information centre, called Safe Zone, in Chiredzi in the south-western
part of Zimbabwe earlier this month. Chiredzi is only two hours from the
border with South Africa, and is therefore an area where high numbers of
border jumpers pass through.

The centre also provides a haven for
deportees who have returned home. ''Safe Zone is a place where youths can
enjoy themselves and be informed through daily education sessions on safe
migration, responsible sexual practices and HIV prevention,'' Nicola
Simmonds, IOM Zimbabwe's communications officer told IPS.

IOM has
also launched a ''safe journey road show'' which goes around Zimbabwe. The
road show is done with a truck that converts into a stage and a giant movie
screen with a crew of actors trained in interactive theatre. Through
audiovisual information packages, the target audience is drawn in by music,
dance and film.

They can win t-shirts, posters and music cassettes. The
messaging revolves around illegal migration, human trafficking and
HIV/AIDS.

''I have seen the films and they are good. They are in local
languages. I have learnt a lot. It has made me think twice about border
jumping,'' said Solo Chauke of Tshovani township in Chiredzi.

''The
response has been amazing so far. We draw huge crowds every night. During
the day we have youth clubs that help spread the message in the community,''
added Simmonds.

IOM bases its activities on statistics that an estimated
17,500 illegal migrants are being deported every month from neighbouring
South Africa and Botswana. Some 70 percent of deportees are from south east
Zimbabwe.

IOM has initiated hairdressing and carpentry income-generating
projects and plans are underway to help illegal Zimbabwean migrants in
cities like Johannesburg to return home.

One such initiative received
an indifferent response in the United Kingdom. IOM offered packages worth
3,000 British pounds (about 4,300 US dollars) for voluntary repatriation but
the initiative failed. Thousands of Zimbabweans are illegally living
overseas, with an unofficial figure that 2,5 million are residing in South
Africa alone.

A support centre was set up at the Zimbabwe-South Africa
border post town of Beit Bridge. To date, thousands have benefited from the
centre by receiving medication and travelling money. A shocking number of
1,450 unaccompanied children have also passed through the
centre.

Khumbula is concerned that the ruling party, ZANU-PF, will hijack
the IOM programme. ''We are heading towards the 2008 elections. ZANU PF will
use its old trick of hijacking these projects.''

Police extend ban on political rallies in Harare

By Lance Guma25 May
2007

Police have banned rallies and demonstrations in 4 districts of
Harare until the 23rd June citing what they called 'recent disturbances.'
Police spokesman Andrew Mandipaka told journalists they wanted to avoid
problems such as the looting and bombing of police stations, an excuse used
to effect the first ban in February this year. The ban expired on the 20th
May and the extension has taken many by surprise, given that security forces
have been on the offensive abducting and torturing opposition
activists.

Areas covered by the extended ban include Mbare District,
Harare Suburban, Harare South, and Harare Central. Our correspondent Simon
Muchemwa reports that for some strange reason the district that covers areas
like Mabvuku, a traditional hotbed of opposition demonstrations, has not
been included in the ban. The MDC recently launched operation 'free them
now' to put pressure on the government to release 32 of its officials locked
up in Harare's remand prison for over 2 months. The exercise is said to
include extensive diplomatic lobbying regionally and internationally to put
pressure on Mugabe's regime.

It's not known however if there is a
link between the MDC campaign and the renewed police ban. The opposition
party has been putting posters around the country with the names of all the
officials in jail and there are fears in government circles this could
galvanise MDC supporters into action. A legal challenge to the first police
ban declared in February is still awaiting a ruling by the country's courts.
The MDC has in the past argued the ban constitutes an undeclared state of
emergency and preceded a brutal attack on its leadership, including their
President Morgan Tsvangirai.

Opposition And Civic Groups Outraged By Zimbabwe's Ban on
Rallies

VOA

By Blessing ZuluWashington25 May
2007

Zimbabwe's opposition and civic groups have expressed
outrage at the announcement by Harare, Thursday, that it had extended its
ban on political rallies and public demonstrations, for another month, with
immediate effect.

The two factions of the opposition Movement for
Democratic Change, joined hands in condemning the state's actions, and
promised to defy the ban, which is restricted to four districts of the
capital - Mbare, Harare South, Central and Suburban.

The government's
latest ban in the four districts, which ends June 23, is an extension of the
one police enforced in February, in Mbare and Harare South district, fearing
an outbreak of rioting. That ban expired on May 20.

Chairman Lovemore
Madhuku of the National Constitutional Assembly, also said his organization
would intensify its defiance campaigns, despite the ban.

Police
spokesman, chief superintendent Oliver Mandipaka, told VOA the bans were put
in place to curb political violence, and that they would be reviewed
periodically. Senior police officers in Harare, have accused the MDC of
launching a violence campaign of beating up police officers, and throwing
petrol bombs into police stations, and other civilian targets.

The
opposition has dismissed the charges as a cover up for the ongoing crackdown
on the opposition.

Spokesman Nelson Chamisa, of the Morgan
Tsvangirai-led MDC faction, told reporter Blessing Zulu of VOA's Studio 7
for Zimbabwe, that Harare is now in an undeclared state of emergency. The
Deputy secretary general Priscilla Misihairambwi-Mushonga, of the rival MDC
faction led by Arthur Mutambara, told reporter Zulu that the government is
being clearly undemocratic.

Pressure is mounting on
the African Commission, which is currently sitting in Ghana, to take urgent
steps against the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Five leading
international human rights groups came together and issued a joint shadow
report expressing concern and refuting a propaganda report that was
submitted by the Mugabe regime to the Commission.

Despite denials by the
Zimbabwe government, scores of opposition and civic activists have been
under attack for several years now, but the last three months have seen an
escalation of state sponsored violence, including abductions and killings.
Since March the attacks have also spread to include lawyers, journalists and
church leaders.

Kevin Laue from REDRESS, an international NGO working to
obtain justice and reparation for torture survivors, said the shadow report
(ZIMBABWE: Human Rights in Crisis) is to give the Africa Commission an
alternative perspective, at a time when it is considering the Zimbabwe
government's State Party Report. The government document carefully ignores
or denies the state sponsored violence and the collapse of the
country

Laue said REDRESS has done a chapter on torture, Human Rights
Watch on land reform and the Murambatsvina catastrophe which displaced more
than 700 000 people, Amnesty International on questions of freedom of
association and assembly, the Article 19 chapter deals with freedom of
expression issues analyzing attacks on journalists, and the International
Bar Association wrote a section analyzing rule of law issues and attacks on
the legal profession.

Groups like REDRESS say they are becoming
increasingly concerned about the welfare of victims of torture in Zimbabwe
and human rights doctors have recently expressed concern over the condition
of the 32 political detainees who have been in custody for two months. Many
of the prisoners were abducted from their homes and tortured in police
custody.

REDRESS' Director Carla Ferstman said: "This blatant and public
attack puts torture into the spotlight and cannot be ignored." The group
called on the African body to send a clear message that torture is
unacceptable in all circumstances. The group said such is the widespread
nature of torture in Zimbabwe that the survivors have little if any
realistic prospect of obtaining reparations under the present regime. "There
have been numerous reports of victims who have tried to report an abuse to
the police, only to be detained and further abused by the police
themselves," Ferstman said.

Some signs of life in 'silent' Zim talks

Pretoria News

May 25, 2007
Edition 1

Sapa-AP

Momentum is building to start South
African-brokered talks to resolve Zimbabwe's deepening crisis.

But
the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has again refused
demands that before talks proceed, it recognises President Robert Mugabe as
the nation's legitimately elected leader. That condition stalled two
previous initiatives.

The opposition claims it has been robbed at
parliamentary and presidential elections by violent intimidation of voters
and ballot rigging. The opposition also has demanded the repeal of sweeping
media and security laws, electoral reforms and an end to state-orchestrated
political violence.

Yet both main opposition parties are considering
setting aside their demands in a bid to get to the negotiating table, where
the demands can be tackled later, say opposition officials.

"There
must be an environment where there are no conditions and where no issue is
taboo in negotiations," said one official who asked not to be
identified.

South Africa has insisted that none of any likely
participants in talks, including representatives of civic groups, air their
negotiating positions through the media and has enforced a news blackout,
saying the new initiative will not be conducted through the
media.

President Thabo Mbeki, appointed in March by the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) to mediate on Zimbabwe, was given until the end
of June to return with concrete proposals on narrowing the chasm between
Mugabe's ruling party and the MDC.

The official said: "The pressure
is on. The situation is impacting on the whole region and President Mbeki
has a deadline to meet."

African leaders have heard repeated calls to do
more to press Mugabe to embark on reforms. But at the summit at which Mbeki
- who has long advocated quiet diplomacy over confrontation with Mugabe -
was appointed to mediate, the SADC voiced full support for Mugabe.

At
another regional summit in Kenya this week, Mugabe had harsh words for his
opposition and his critics in the West, and was applauded by fellow African
leaders.

Earlier this month, Mbeki sent a delegation, headed by
Provincial and Local Government Minister Sydney Mufamadi, to Harare for
talks with Mugabe.

Mufamadi did not meet with opposition leaders in
Harare, but several top aides of MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai and rival
faction leader Arthur Mutambara have shuttled to and from South Africa in
recent weeks.

Mutambara, his secretary-general Welshman Ncube and Ncube's
opposite number in the Tsvangirai group, Tendai Biti, have met South African
officials in South Africa.

In line with the South African news
blackout, none has confirmed reports of a meeting in South Africa with
Mugabe's justice minister, Patrick Chinamasa, the ruling party's chief
negotiator in previous failed talks.

But
"something has to be done to find a way forward and it has to be done
urgently", said one official.

There were suggestions for at least
initial talks in June for Mbeki to deliver to regional leaders, he
said.

Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa would not confirm any
details of the mediation process. "Mediation is a process, not an event. We
are not going to comment except to say that mediations are on
course."

Zimbabwe's economic meltdown worsened this month as inflation
spiralled to a record 3 714%, the highest in the world. Consumer prices
doubled in April, according to the official Central Statistical Office,
putting basic goods out of the reach of citizens.

Hot Seat Interview: Zimbabwe Sanctions
debate

Violet
Gonda: My guests on the programme Hot Seat this week are Brian
Kagoro a political commentator,
Tapera Kapuya coordinator of the National
Constitutional Assembly and Ralph Black the
deputy representative of the MDC in North America .

The discussion centres on the
controversial targeted sanctions issue, the restrictions imposed on members of
the Mugabe regime by western countries. The Zimbabwe government blames the
crisis in the country on the sanctions while the West says they are targeted
sanctions against individuals and will only be removed if the rule of law is
restored in Zimbabwe . But the regime is now saying the sanctions must be
removed as a pre-condition before talks can begin.

We received quite a few responses from
last week’s debate with Moeletsi Mbeki during which Brian Kagoro said the issue
of sanctions should be reconsidered as a way of getting the stakeholders to the
negotiating table. So I will start with Brian. What is your understanding of the
restrictions imposed by the West.

Brian Kagoro:
There are two separate types. The ones that were imposed under the
Cotonou Arrangement by the EU. Those are purely travel bans and they affect
individuals that are named in the EU list – that list has grown as large as 96.
They were indiscriminately applied to all senior ranking ZANU PF members. Then
under ZIDERA, in fact Lovemore Madhuku, myself and Tawanda Hondora did an
analysis of ZIDERA …

Violet:
The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act

Brian
Kagoro: That’s correct and at the time we issued what became the
official – the regional official Crisis Coalition position dissociating
ourselves from ZIDERA. Partly because on the face of it ZIDERA really is a non
issue accept that I think it was the then clause 3A or 3C that said all
representatives of the United States government, the IMF and the World Bank
would veto – would have the right to veto any support to Zimbabwe should the
matter be tabled before them. So that meant that representatives to all
international and financial institutions carried a veto vote, which is anti,
until such a time as democracy would be restored to Zimbabwe and that support
would only be towards specific pro-democracy entities. There were no objections
at the time to support to civil society, to radios and to issues like that.

In the broad context there are no
economic sanctions in the nature you have in South Africa , against Zimbabwe .
There are no military sanctions or diplomatic sanctions in the nature that you
have seen the Americans impose on others like Libya and elsewhere. So there are
two issues there; the ZANU PF broad reference to sanctions is misleading because
it suggests sanctions in the broad sense that its sanctions against the country,
but even in common opposition speak the understanding of what subsist seems to
be limited because ZIDERA itself was not subjected to any broad discussion save
within the space of the so called then ‘think tanks’ that were constituted.
There was no broad civic engagement with ZIDERA.

But let me then, from there also say
there is a third regime of sanctions which are popular people to people
sanctions. Which is when people, consumers boycott popular products made by
particular companies because they are controlled by interests that don’t uphold
certain values. Those don’t currently exist against Zimbabwe because those are
not pushed by an ideology of particular countries. They fall into a separate
category and I will explain with time later on why my position on people to
people sanctions is different from a position that grants veto powers in the IMF
and World Bank as well as the governmental sanctions.

And my position last week let me
restate it; it’s simply that the opposition gained in my view nothing
significant from travel bans and that if the choice were between ordinary
Zimbabweans and the opposition being allowed to campaign freely in rural areas
against scrapping of travel bans, because that’s really the only substantive
operative form of targeted sanctions that exist, I don’t see, if the choice as I
understand it is between the ability and the freedom to do that particular level
of organising ahead of the 2008 election – and that is where the catch is at –
then I am not sure why any particular person would insist that there is a real
choice between travel bans and that anybody should really be in serious
contention with ZANU over the travel bans.

Violet: Ok
let me move to Ralph Black, as he is an opposition official. Now Ralph the MDC
says there are targeted sanctions and that there are no trade sanctions against
Zimbabwe but it is a fact that the IMF and the World Bank are treating Zimbabwe
as a pariah state and that could be interpreted as sanctions. Don’t you agree
with this?

Ralph Black:
I understand that ZANU PF would use it as mileage and say that there
are sanctions because the IMF and World Bank don’t want to deal with them and
the IMF and World Bank I believe have a structured process of reasoning as to
why they would not deal with ZANU PF. However the travel ban, I will disagree
with Brian slightly, in that the travel ban has a nuisance factor that is
causing a great amount of annoyance among ZANU PF officials because they are
unable to travel to certain countries and deal in diamonds or purchase equipment
and visit their children. Basically restrictive measures that have a higher
annoyance value, a nuisance value than any substantive value and it is this
annoyance that is causing a lot of pain within ZANU PF. They are unable to
strike deals in America, if Gideon Gono or anyone on the travel ban comes to
America - they have to come on an official business - their visas are only given
with the condition that they cannot travel 20miles outside the radius of the
World Bank or IMF. Which leaves a very small place for these men to operate
based on their business dealings and interests in many of the foreign countries,
mainly Britain and to some extent America . And so the fact that ZANU PF has
raised the issue that sanctions must be repealed is nothing more than a
negotiation ploy. They understand they have their backs against the wall. The
demands being made by the opposition if they were to be met even in part would
weaken their grip substantially within the country and so…

Violet:
But what about the issue of the IMF and the World Bank?

Ralph
Black: Well the IMF and World Bank basically don’t, any bank would not
give money to any individual that first of all doesn’t have collateral and
secondly has no capacity to repay a loan and I think this is why the IMF and
World Bank don’t want to deal with Zimbabwe. When Robert Mugabe compulsory
acquired land he destroyed the

collateral-bility of that land and he
hampered that means by which Zimbabwe could raise foreign currency to make the
balance of payment dues and interest payments on loans. So the World Bank has
said simply “the fact that you have reduced your own capacity to repay these
loans we are not prepared to forward you any money.”

So I think that’s the thinking, the
general thinking behind the IMF and World Bank funds. And also in the past five
or six years the IMF and World Bank are beginning to change their model simply
from giving money to African countries and not demanding some sort of
accountability. I know that the Fund has products that help the Central Bank –
the Reserve Bank trade and follow donor funds and hold people accountable. The
World Bank under Paul Wolfowitz and now probably somebody new
from the United States within the Bush Administration were also looking at
curbing corruption and the siphoning off of funds by governments that was meant
for development aid not for their pockets. So there are a number of factors that
led them to that decision but what precipitated their actions was the inability
of Zimbabwe to adopt economic reforms and secondly the destruction of the
collateral-bility of land – the violation of private property law or private
property rights, led them to believe that “listen we can’t just keep giving
Zimbabwe money and there is no chance of it being repaid based on their policy.”

Violet:
Now Tapera, Brian said as the leadership of the Crisis in Zimbabwe
Coalition they actually opposed ZIDERA, what is the position of the National
Constitutional Assembly as far as ZIDERA is concerned and the sanctions in
general?

Tapera Kapuya:
I thinklike what Brian has said, I think he has spoken
much in effective representation of the position of the broader civic movement
within Zimbabwe that there is a general consensus that no one supports ZIDERA.
But it’s a separate issue when one begins to think around issues about personal
sanctions effected on individuals members of the ruling clique of Zimbabwe and
personal sanctions in the category of person to person. But I also think,
probably in a personal capacity, that we must not de-historify Zimbabwe . There
are a number of other issues we have to put into context here. That Zimbabwe is
not necessarily suffering economically as a result of the sanctions. The
Zimbabwean crisis did not emanate from 1989. The economic crisis was already
obtaining post the ‘80s, when we entered into the ‘90s our adoption of the
economic structural adjustment and failed policies, corruption and so forth,
this is where much of the economic crisis began to be felt so I think its part
of the historic context as well which should be put into place and the 1996 food
riots or the retrenchments which we saw in ‘94 and so forth were not a result of
the sanctions which we are beginning to see now.

So I think the discussion around the
economic meltdown, the economic crisis which we are experiencing must be taken
within the historic context which acknowledges that economic failure, failures
around national economic development was already obtaining prior to these
sanctions being put in place and I just felt that was one picture of the general
context of the economic meltdown which we have to put in place. And as well
following up on the previous debate in which Brian made his contributions where
he suggested that we must within the broader pro-democracy movement consider the
lifting of sanctions if that would make Mugabe to go. I think I would be
speaking for the majority of Zimbabweans in saying that should not be an issue.
We must not and we must never be made to feel that our liberation of freedom is
dependant on the charity or goodwill of Mugabe. I think if there is any
pressure, which has to be applied, it must be continued to be applied.

Ralph
Black: And I agree with Tapera. I think the notion that we must lift
the travel ban as a goodwill measure in the negotiations is overly simplistic.
Robert Mugabe does not require a visa to Britain to reconsider his dictatorial
position and our advocacy, and it’s my personal position, that ZIDERA – which
has lapsed in a way that has been ineffective in a way, needs to be revisited by
the Americans and in the run up to the next year’s elections have another stick
and carrot arrangement if Mugabe does not adopt democratic reforms. The country
will be further isolated, his party and regime will face stringent measures that
must be broader to include some legislators who support undemocratic legislation
that will inevitably perpetuate Mugabe’s rule.

Brian
Kagoro: Violet, let me state the full contradictions that I hear from
my two colleagues. Ideologically I think Tapera and I agree. Tapera for example
appropriately places the historical context of the economic crisis as being
linked to the structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank and the IMF.
Which relate to this whole thing of collateralisation of land, treating
historically and inequitably acquired private title to land as sacrosanct and
making that a condition precedent for judging whether or not a country is
democratic. So there are ideological contradictions. The first one is that many
of us opposed not the land reform programme but the violence that attended it
and this was consistently the position of people in the broader civic movement.
So let me make that one point. But number two, I raised the issue of sanctions
because they are as we understand negotiations behind closed doors going on
between ZANU PF and MDC that are going to be facilitated by SADC. Now to be
realistic, if your leaders are already negotiating they can even negotiate on a
minimalist platform of holding elections, which they did previously and it
resulted in ZANU PF strengthening or they can negotiate in a context that
broadens the table that allows the Taperas of this world and others to
participate and allows the nature and formal political access and participation
beyond electioneering. For Tapera and I, for example, the issue of going back to
a people driven constitution is appropriate but we can’t do that as long as our
meetings in the townships, our meetings in the rural areas are barred by either
the militias or by state police. It is not the charity of Robert Mugabe that we
are looking for.

Violet:
But Brian that is exactly what I wanted to ask you that even on the issue of the
talks that are underway right now, we have seen that over the last few years
Mugabe has made false promises and has shown that he cannot be trusted, so
shouldn’t people be making demands for him to stop what he is doing first and
then remove the restrictions?

Brian Kagoro:
I mean if you are going to go into negotiations firstly negotiations
are on the face of it a sign of capitulation. If you believe that pressure and
force alone will get you what you want what the hell are you doing at the
negotiating table? But the history of our country teaches us that even after a
bloody war, in 1979, unwilling parties went to Lancaster to negotiate
independence. 1987, after a seven-year standoff between ZAPU and ZANU they went
to the Unity Accord. Even in South Africa the apartheid state and the
nationalist movement had to negotiate. If you listened to me last week I said
the reality is that there is no substitute pressure. Negotiations are no
substitute for pressure. Pressure is not a substitute for negotiations all
fronts must be explored. But when you are exploring negotiations you must be
clear on what it is you are demanding and the point I want to put on the table
is simply this; if the opposition cannot sink its life on targeted sanctions –
if we are all agreed that these have a nuisance value as my colleague from North
America has said, and not a substantive value for the common man on the street
why would nuisance value be of such importance to negotiate. We are not the ones
that imposed the targeted sanctions it was the Europeans…

Ralph
Black: But perhaps ….

Brian Kagoro:
so you know…

Ralph
Black: But perhaps Brian there is the issue of leverage, there is the
issue of what has caused Robert Mugabe - Robert Mugabe’s regime has backed up.
His economy is collapsing. His governor is saying we need to negotiate with
international financial institutions in order to get money to pay upgrade our
power plansto get fuel. Now you are going to say at this
particular point because there is that admission and we are at the table let’s
just remove the restrictive sanctions or the restrictive measures, especially
the travel bans, and hopefully Robert Mugabe will have a change of heart and
step forward and say OK, let …

Tapera:
Ya, I think here, I think here one of the missing elements within the national
narrative, which we are beginning to develop at the moment, is an insistent
focus around what the pro-democracy movement should yield. Which is the
pro-democracy movement should yield on the pressure, which it is applying on the
regime. I think we should equally focus on the sanctions which the regime itself
is meting on the majority of our people! Which is continued abductions on a
systematic level on activists, the oppression, the torture, which is continuing
to happen. The de-industrialization on the country, which is happening, the
rampant resource stripping of the nation, which is happening at a coordinated
level by the regime. These are issues, which I think are much more fundamental
than what the pro-democracy movement should be yielding. With or without
sanctions our economy will still go down for as long as we have the current crop
of leadership, which we have. For as long as we don’t have and don’t focus on
building the necessary institutions which can sustain a developing nation, which
can sustain a people who are geared towards development and to me I think we
mustn’t be apologetic in our demands for unfettered freedom, for total
democracy. Democracy on the economic field, democracy on the social field,
democracy on a political field and I think these are issues which must occupy
our demands. What we should perhaps put much more energy around is what exactly
is bringing ZANU PF around to even consider negotiations with the pro-democracy
movement, which it never wanted to negotiate with in the first place?

And beyond that there is an issue,
which Brian raised around the circumstances the environment, which is necessary
for dialogue or for talks to happen, and he gave an example of South Africa. The
example of South Africa is quite telling; you needed good will on both parties,
you need to establish at least a framework of mutual respect and a framework of
mutual understanding. We cannot have a situation of negotiations when we still
have political prisoners. I mean people like Paul Madzore who are senior members
of the Movement for Democratic Change are still locked up in dungeons in Harare
and we talk about negotiations!

Brian
Kagoro: I think

Tapera:
You need to first create a situation where people can negotiate, you need to
create a situation where the nation can dialogue around what it sees as it’s own
priorities together and I think that process and that framework needs to be
established first before we can even talk about what pressures one is facing and
what pressure the other one is not facing.

Ralph Black:
ya

Violet:
Brian?

Brian Kagoro:
Violet I think it’s because; Tapera is right. I agree totally with him.
I am not sure exactly where him and I disagree. What I have said from the
beginning is you need a conducive environment to go to dialogue. However as we
understand it the leaders of the opposition are already in some form of
dialogue, right. For me, the question that I was asked was simple; what is at
stake when you go to dialogue? Tapera is also right; the economy is not on its
knees, the regime is not at the negotiating table because of targeted sanctions,
if anybody believes that then they may as well believe that there are angels in
the world.

Violet:
Brian if Zimbabwe is not suffering as a result of the sanctions why should they
be removed?

Brian Kagoro:
No no no. I said because Mugabe has raised sanctions as a red herring.
You see it’s a pyrrhic victory because as Tapera rightly says the economy has
been on its knees since the late 80s. It worsened when we went into the Congo.
It worsened even further when we gave war veterans gratuities that were
unbudgeted for. So to ever delude ourselves and try and link the targeted
sanctions to the economic meltdown and the pressures to negotiate actually it’s
being ahistorical. So if historically you follow the trajectory of thought that
Tapera has adopted; that this is a structural crisis that was linked to the IMF
and World Bank conditionalities in the first place; poor policy prescriptions in
the first place. That we are at the negotiating table not necessarily because
Mugabe took land but because the country has been ill-governed and because the
country has been ill-governed because it has bad leaders and bad policies and
that what we need is not just democracy in the political realm but democracy in
the economic and other sectors to ensure that ordinary Zimbabweans have access
to quality public services, have access to opportunities to develop themselves.
If that…

Ralph
Black: Sorry Brian I …

Brian Kagoro:
Sorry,if it is that is the trajectory of thought you
take, you must then go to the second question that says, “how did targeted
sanctions end up being imposed on Zimbabwe?” Was it because the opposition asked
for them? Not necessarily. Those of us who were very active in pro-democracy
politics at the time will tell you that it was the Europeans that started this
debate. It was the Europeans that imposed them, from the Europeans perspective
in the notion this would force Mugabe to see sense. We are seven years into this
crisis, ok, and if my understanding of what Tapera is saying is correct;
targeted sanctions are not necessarily what is pushing these guys to the table,
we must focus ourselves to what is it that we are trying to achieve. As
pro-democracy forces I am not particularly sure.

If we are trying to achieve the
conditions that say “our pre-conditions are free all political prisoners,
dismantle institutions of violence, seize forthwith the abductions and murder of
pro-democracy activists.” If these are our pre-conditions and if all Mugabe is
asking for is the scrapping of targeted sanctions the question I asked last week
and the question I ask again, is seeing as the most fundamental thrust of all
pro-democracy politics in Zimbabwe is to ensure that there is space, political
and democratic space to organize, to mobilize, to campaign and to resist –
within the confines of course of constitutionalism – and that the only restraint
to that is this infrastructure of violence, this repressive legislation, this
resort to stone-age tactics, and if we agree as Tapera has rightly said that the
economic crisis history is more in the macro economic prescriptions of the IMF
and World Bank and the conditionalities that were inappropriate and that what is
pushing the regime to a corner is this collapse of the economy which is not
linked to personal targeted sanctions; the targeted sanctions are affecting, as
Ralph said, people’s pockets, I am not sure why – and this is why I am trying to
get my colleagues to explain to me - we would stake any reputation on the
targeted sanctions necessarily.

I see them as nuisance value and I
agree with Ralph. Why is it not, because it’s a red herring as far as we are
concerned we know that Mugabe is not serious, we know it’s a dialectic tactic
and we know that he wants to detain the opposition because for the opposition
there might be a moral question because if we say scrap targeted sanctions we
are conceding defeat. But in real terms targeted sanctions or no targeted
sanctions makes no difference to the economic trajectory or the economic
developments that we are seeing in Zimbabwe’s decline.

Violet:
Ralph can you give us your reaction to what Brian Kagoro has just said and also
on the issue of sanctions some have said Mugabe can easily limp along from
crisis to crisis if pressure is reduced. Do you agree with this?

Ralph
Black: Ya I agree with it. I think Brian’s position makes sense in the
absence of other factors. I believe that for the last seven years critical
functions of government were being financed from, I would like to say personal
finances – organizational finances from ZANU PF. They were dealing with
diamonds, they were dealing in property, they were dealing in timber, they had a
tobacco crop, they had export flowers and food crops. There was foreign currency
that was coming into the pockets of ZANU PF leaders that they were able to
forward the government. The former finance minister used his ‘personal finances’
to help in an election. But one of the aspects of the targeted sanctions regime
is the assets freeze. I believe that there is more to Mugabe’s wanting to talk
than just him simply being backed up into a corner because things are
collapsing. He is likely to limp from crisis to crisis if the asset freeze is
lifted and we are seeing a greater difficulty for the oligarchy, the
bourgeoisie, the leadership to make money to keep certain functions in
government going. The recent information I received was that there are foreign
functionaries – the Bredenkamps and the Rautenbachs are unable to offload
diamonds on the black market as easily as they could three years ago simply
because the asset freeze now is beginning to have teeth. We are beginning to see
that huge mounts of properties and money is being seized in America that belongs
to leading members of the regime. That they have been able to launder their
money through and keep the country going.

So I think Mugabe, the ZANU PF
leadership has come to the crossroads and in this process of negotiations has
come to the crossroads and is asking that the sanctions be lifted just to give
them sufficient time to catch their breath and limp from this crisis to another.
And I believe that at one particular point in the process of negotiations those
that are responsible for the targeted sanctions have to review their
effectiveness and at what point they begin to alleviate the pressure. But this
is not the point. No concessions have been made by the Mugabe regime. They are
countering a proposal that is on the table and placing a condition to accepting
that proposal; that if you lift the targeted sanctions and scrap the asset
freeze. I think all that has been said in this discussion is somewhat relevant
on a continuum or as we progress in these discussions but alleviating the
pressure at this particular stage will be foolhardy.

Tapera
Kapuya: One thing which I wanted to add on Violet before we moved on is
that I think we must be very clear on a number of other issues and I think the
primary issue here is that the MDC never called for any sanctions be it ZIDERA,
targeted sanctions or these travel bans.

Ralph
Black: Correct.

Tapera
Kapuya: It was not the Crisis Coalition, it was not the NCA which ever
called for sanctions on the country and we must be equally clear that it was the
Unites States government – its Congress, the European Union which imposed
sanctions on Mugabe and if Mugabe and his cronies have any problems about the
sanctions they should use the multi-lateral channels which they have; the UN,
the African Union or diplomatic channels to talk to their counterparts in the
EU, their counterparts in the United States to lift the sanctions. It is not the
business of Zimbabweans to be talking about sanctions, which they never called
for in the first place.

Violet: So
are you saying that the pro-democracy movement does not want the targeted
sanctions and you are blaming it on the West and that the West should then
reconsider the issue of sanctions?

Tapera Kapuya:
I am not apportioning any blame about sanctions nor am I saying those
sanctions should be removed. What I am saying is Mugabe should not turn back to
us and say we called for those sanctions. We did not call for those sanctions;
if he has any problem with them then he must talk to those who have imposed
sanctions on him. It’s not our business to act as his middlemen to talk about
how much pressure should be applied or not applied on him. These are moral
positions, which I think the broader pro-democracy movement should adopt. We
should not even concern ourselves about how other people decide or governments
or societies decide to respond in solidarity of an oppressed people.

Violet:
But then what happens when Mugabe is making that as a pre-condition to talks?

Brian Kagoro: But Violet I think Tapera
has a very fundamental point and this is why in my entry last week; my point was
it is not the MDC that has the power to suspend sanctions or the pro-democracy
movement. If Mugabe is making that as a pre-condition towards talks the only
business that the pro-democracy movement has is to set its own pre-conditions,
which pre-conditions must also be set by African countries. These are the
pre-conditions I have kept on harping on; dismantle the infrastructure of
violence, seize forthwith the organized torture and violence, scrap the
oppressive and repressive legislation, open up democratic space, open up free
access to the rural areas for the purposes of mobilization and campaigning. It
is the business of the EU and the Americans to decide whether the conditions
that would satisfy them to lift those sanctions exist. So on that point I would
agree totally with Tapera but I think Ralph made another very important point.
At what time, at what point in the negotiations do you even start thinking, if
you were the Europeans or the Americans, of easing pressure. I think that is a
question that we shouldn’t be answering because we are not the EU we are not the
Americans. That’s a point that the Americans and the EU should be answering.

Violet
Gonda: But it seems to me you are all refusing to answer to that point,
to the point that the West would not have imposed these measures without the
consent of the pro-democracy movement. Is this not the case?

Tapera Kapuya:
No, no, no it’s not the case Violet. The reverse is actually the case.

Ralph Black:
Violet from the part of the opposition we did not ask for sanctions. We
did not ask for the targeted sanctions, the assets freeze or the IMF isolation.
However we understand why the Americans and the Europeans imposed them however
it’s not our business to say to them at this particular point repeal them and
normalize relationship. I believe that Robert Mugabe knows his way to 10 Downing
Street; he knows his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If he has issues with
these particular restrictive measures he must approach them. At that particular
point if it suits the Americans and the Europeans they might ask - have the
conditions on the ground improved? Perhaps then, and I am not saying we will,
but perhaps we will then give them input. But I agree that the concept that he
is raising the issue knowing full well that we don’t have the all in all to ask
for these measures to be lifted or repealed. I believe that we must stick to the
moral aspect of our demands, our pre-conditions as Brian has so eloquently
placed them; stop the torture, stop the beatings, stop the abductions, repeal
repressive legislations, grant access to the media so that we can campaign and
mobilize and have an internationally observed and monitored election which is
relatively free and fair. It’s difficult for us who have not caused something to
work to bring about a change. Sanctions I believe were an act of solidarity and
they can only be reversed by an act of congress and an act of parliament in
Europe and there is nothing that the MDC can do to change that.

Violet
Gonda: And we have run out of time but we’ll bring you the final
discussion with our three speakers next Tuesday.

Constitution a Vexed Issue in
Mediation Process

Both sides in the Zimbabwean confrontation want to change
the constitution - but in radically different ways.

By Zakeus Chibaya
in Johannesburg (AR No. 113, 25-May-07)

Constitutional matters look set
to feature large in the mediation effort led by South Africa president Thabo
Mbeki to seek a solution to Zimbabwe's continuing political crisis. While
the opposition wants Mbeki to facilitate progress towards a more democratic
constitution, the ruling ZANU-PF may pre-empt this by getting its own
constitutional changes in first.

Mbeki has been mandated by the Southern
Africa Development Community, SADC, to talk to President Robert Mugabe and
his political opponents. As he engages with the two sides, he is hearing
demands from the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, for a major
overhaul of the current constitution as a precondition for fair
elections.

According to political analyst Edmund Gwazai, "The road map
should lead to constitutional amendments which are acceptable to both
parties.

"A new and well-drafted constitution will definitely solve the
whole conflict facing the country. It will provide a platform for fair and
free elections, and there will be an independent judiciary to arbitrate on
issues of conflict arising from elections."

The MDC has threatened to
boycott the 2008 elections if the mediation process fails to result in an
agreed set of constitutional amendments.

IWPR understands that both
factions of the MDC have submitted letters to Mbeki identifying the
constitution as the source of the present political conflict.

"The
talks should lead to a new constitution where draconian laws will be
scrapped to make way for free and fair elections," Thamsqwa Mahlangu, the
MDC's national youth chairperson for MDC, told IWPR.

Zimbabwe still
uses the constitution that was drafted at Lancaster House in London as a
prelude to independence in 1980. There is common consent that it needs to be
changed, but the consensus stops there.

Mugabe's critics say he has used
amendments passed over the years to steadily strengthen his position and
marginalise opponents, notably in 1987 when the rules were changed allowing
him to become president instead of merely prime minister.

Like the
MDC, the National Constitutional Assembly, NCA, a pressure group calling for
legislative reforms, is demanding that a democratically-inspired
constitution should be in place before any election takes
place.

"Whilst supporting the mediation efforts being led by South
Africa, the NCA believes that without promoting a process of assisting
Zimbabweans to establish a people-driven and democratic constitution as a
basis for substantive democracy, the culture of anti-democratic practice
will persist at an extreme human cost to Zimbabwe and the region," said NCA
spokesperson Madock Chivasa.

"Without a constitution that rests on a
vision of democracy, any talk of mediation does nothing but buy time for the
regime to perfect its art of thuggery and abuse."

Mugabe's ruling
ZANU-PF party appears to be avoiding discussion of the issue in the
mediation talks. But it is likely to rush though further amendments slanted
towards strengthening the president's position. That could derail any effort
by the South African leader to forge a constitutional solution acceptable to
both sides.

When ZANU-PF's Central Committee met on March 30, it decided
to introduce a constitutional amendment to parliament enabling the 2010
presidential election to be brought forward so that it coincided with next
year's parliamentary ballot. Other changes would bring in a new procedure
whereby parliament selects a successor if Mugabe resigns before the end of
his next term - meaning the head of state would be indirectly elected by a
ZANU-PF dominated body rather than chosen by the people of
Zimbabwe.

It is these revisions, rather than a new document agreed in
consultations with Mbeki and the MDC, that ZANU-PF plans to push
through.

"We are not going to have a new constitution now, and we don't
know what they are talking about," said ZANU-PF spokesman Nathan
Shamuyarira, in remarks quoted on the website of The
Zimbabwean.

Speaking to IWPR earlier this year, an anonymous ZANU-PF
insider was dismissive of the MDC's demand for a new constitution, and
refused to say whether his party would consider the issue if it were put on
the agenda of mediation talks.

"They rejected a new constitution in
2000. Have they changed their mind now? What are they proposing?" he asked.
"It is their problem. Comrade Mugabe has said the current constitution is
sacrosanct and non-negotiable."

He was referring to a referendum in 2000
in which Zimbabwean voters rejected a new constitution proposed by the
authorities, which would have legitimised the confiscation of white-owned
farms as a way of providing redress for the British colonial past. Mugabe
went ahead with the land seizures anyway, with disastrous effects on the
country's agricultural production.

A fait accompli by ZANU-PF will make
the South African leader's job that much more difficult.

"Mbeki is
going to face a problem where Mugabe rejects a new constitutional initiative
and drafts his own," said Gwazai. "The opposition would demand an outright
new constitution. The issue of the constitution is going to take up much of
the time."

This is not the first time Mbeki has been involved in attempts
to put together a constitution that both sides could sign up to.

With
Mbeki as intermediary, ZANU-PF and the MDC draft a secret document in 2004.
Mbeki told the South African Broadcasting Corporation last year that the
process was complete before the 2005 parliamentary election, and that he had
copies of the document initialled on every page by ZANU-PF and the
MDC.

Mbeki has said subsequently that the election put the process "on
the back-burner" and it was not revived.

Other accounts suggested
that Mugabe got cold feet on the constitution, not so much because of
concerns about the opposition as over a meeting attended by some of his
officials which he saw as a coup plot, requiring him to pull in his
horns.

In Zimbabwe, many people are putting great store in the South
African president's ability to find a political solution and thus open the
way to economic recovery.

Esinath Majoni, who is a nurse by
profession but makes a living from cross-border trading, captured this
sentiment when she said, "We hope that the talks will end our suffering in
the country. It's now difficult to survive in the country, and everyone is
putting her last million dollars on Mbeki's efforts to rescue
us."

Elephants destroy irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe

A
herd of elephants have destroyed 40 hectares of winter wheat at Shashe
Irrigation Scheme, some 135 km west of Beitbridge, Zimbabwe's border city
with South Africa, The Herald reported on Friday.

Beitbridge Senator
Tambudzani Mohadi said this was a very disturbing situation as it came when
the district was facing food shortages. Elephants were becoming a regular
problem in the area and there was need for urgent actions to protect the
community.

The destruction of irrigation schemes and fields was hampering
efforts to realize a good harvest as a measure to alleviate poverty and
hunger in the district, he said.

Mohadi said the destroyed irrigation
scheme was the livelihood of the area and this could mean a bleak future to
residents.

The Parks and Wildlife Management Authority was called in to
help in curbing this problem.

"People are living in fear. The jumbos
are really a threat to our crops and lives," said Mohadi.

School
children in the district were also not attending class due to fear of being
attacked by the elephants, according to the newspaper.

Zimbabwe's POSB Suspends Workers Demanding Pay Increase

VOA

By Jonga KandemiiriWashington25 May
2007

The management of Zimbabwe's People's Own Savings Bank,
or POSB, has suspended more than 20 of it's workers, for taking part in what
it said is a go-slow.

At the management's request, police ordered the
workers off the POSB property, Wednesday, after they attempted to sleep in
the canteen for a second night, after claiming they had no transport money
to go home.

The workers, who had slowed down production, were served with
the suspension letters Thursday afternoon, as they prepared to leave for the
day.

The workers claim they took the action they did, because POSB failed
to honor a 165% salary increase, that was determined by an independent
arbitrator.

Zimbabwe Banks and Allied Workers Union President,
Blessing Mujuru, declined to comment on the situation until he received an
official update.

A POSB employee, who did not want to be named, told
reporter Jonga Kandemiiri of VOA's Studio 7 for Zimbabwe, that the
management was not being sensitive to their plight.

According to Zimbabwe's Financial Gazette newspaper on Thursday, Maphosa
catalogued a litany of army complaints, including the cutting-off of water
supplies to military installations because of unpaid bills and the failure
of a farming project due to lack of funding.

The deputy
minister claimed that Maphosa had been misquoted. "He did not say that the
soldiers were starving but highlighted the need for a quick response by
Treasury on the issue," Matonga said.

"Treasury has responded
very positively and funds have been released," he added. --
Sapa-dpa

Journalist's trial
opens in Bulawayo

Zimbabwejournalists.com

24th May 2007 23:39 GMT

By Ian Nhuka

BULAWAYO - The trial of Bright
Chivuri, an independent journalist who was arrested early this month for
allegedly practising without accreditation, started at the Plumtree
Magistrate's Court yesterday with his lawyer applying for the charge to be
thrown out.

Chivuri, 25, is employed by The Worker, a magazine owned by
the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).

His lawyer, Munyaradzi
Nzarayapenga, told the court that when his client was arrested on May 3, he
was covering a workers' workshop in the border town workshop and was not
covering a story in his capacity as a journalist.

Presiding magistrate,
Sheilla Nzombe is expected to make a ruling on the application on 5
June.

In his argument, Nzarayapenga said at the time of his arrest his
client was awaiting his accreditation card from the Media and Information
Commission (MIC), which he has since obtained.

In terms of the Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), a journalist working
in the country must be accredited by the MIC.

Practising without
accreditation is illegal and a journalist convicted of doing so can be
jailed for up to two years.

Opposing Nzarayapenga's plea for the quashing
of the charges against Chivuri, Plumtree prosecutor Prince Butshe-Dube said
throwing out the charges at this stage is inappropriate.

"The charge,
as currently framed is not defective and therefore cannot be quashed," he
argued.

"The application by my learned friend amounts to an indication
that his client was denying the charges and therefore the application before
this court is frivolous and vexatious."

The prosecutor stated that in
his opinion, the best way to go about the case was for the defence lawyer to
advise his client to plead not guilty to the charge so that they go to
trial.

Chivuri, who is out of custody, has not been formally charged with
contravening a section of the AIPPA - practicing as journalist without
accreditation.

The trial initially failed to take off earlier this
month after officers from MIC who are key state witnesses failed to turn up.
It is the state's case that on 3 May, Chivuri addressed a ZCTU meeting in
Plumtree, telling those gathered that he was a journalist employed by The
Worker.

Then, says the prosecutor, he started writing notes and taking
photographs of the proceedings.

However, two plain-clothes police
officers who had gatecrashed into the ZCTU meeting approached him and asked
for his press card. It is alleged that the scribe produced an expired card.
He was immediately arrested.

The arrest of Chivuri comes amid increasing
state-repression of the independent press in the country. In March, police
arrested award-winning photojournalist, TsvangiraiMukwazhi when he was
covering an opposition Movement for Democratic Change rally in
Harare.

He was detained and allegedly tortured while in police custody.
Luke Tamborinyoka, another journalist who used to work for the banned Daily
News remains in remand prison after his arrest around the same time. Edward
Chikomba, a freelance television cameraman was most unlucky after he was
abducted in Harare by unknown people and found dead in Darwendale

The regurgitated myth
of MDC's lack of depth to govern

IT has been repeated and now it has become a really
tedious chorus that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change lacks
capacity to govern.

It has of course come from detractors of the
opposition Party but it has also come from other people who are not at all
ZANU PF. Recently Brain Kagoro, a respected lawyer in his own right,
recycled the same unfortunate theme. Of course he was corrected by Moeletsi
Mbeki during their interview on SW Radio Africa.

The people who are
rushing to say that MDC lacks capacity to govern are in all essence taking a
very remote look at the opposition Party. I am not so sure how they come to
the conclusion as I believe a political party first and foremost is formed
with the intention to govern.

The first facet of a political Party that
is interested in governing is when they have in place the structural
capacity to fill in the shoes of a government should they be elected into
office. We have to examine the MDC first and foremost in its structural
framework.

Does the MDC have the necessary structures to pose a serious
challenge to the ruling Party and also extend that to governing in Zimbabwe?
The political party that is the MDC has four structures: The Executive MDC
which comprises of all the officials of the Party, the Parliamentary MDC
which is the party in parliament i.e. MPs, the grassroots MDC which is the
party support at the first instances i.e. branches and wards and also the
Secretariat MDC which is the wing of the Party that is tasked with the
running of the Party on a daily basis.

These structures of the MDC
are up and running and there is clearly a lot of efficiency on the ground
with the possibility of strengthening them of course.

I am not being
defeatist by submitting that in fact these structures themselves can easily
feel in the shoes of governance should there be need. The MDC in Parliament
is also formulated into a Shadow cabinet and so are the Portfolio
Secretaries of the Party who are in a way shadowing ministers as their roles
like that of cabinet ministers are for policy formulation, stimulation and
simulation.

To add to that let us not forget that the Party in Parliament
is also members of Parliamentary Portfolio Committees whose roles we can not
downplay. The structures of the MDC have shown their potential in elections
where the Party has consistently been able to field candidates
overwhelmingly in all Constituencies making it way ahead of other opposition
parties which have only fielded candidates in selected
Constituencies.

A party that is intending to run the government shows
that by being overwhelmingly nationalistic and there is one of the ways of
doing so is by being relevant to every part of Zimbabwe. It shows the
readiness that is demanded of a serious government in waiting by being for
all the people of Zimbabwe.

This structural readiness of the MDC also
transgresses borders and thus justifying the presence of the Party even
outside Zimbabwe. Here the Party shows a shift in philosophy; a paradigm
shift that actually recognises the effect globalisation has had even on the
governance of Zimbabwe. It is therefore way ahead of both ZANU PF and the
current Government of Zimbabwe in that it recognises that people of a
country will one day leave the country and find themselves in other
countries where they will be relevant to the politics of their country
nevertheless.

This is recognition of modernity and we have seen this in
modern parties in the region such as the National Resistance Movement of
Uganda, the Forum for Democratic Change (Uganda's main opposition), the
rainbow Coalition of Kenya and also rejuvenated old political parties such
as ANC, Chama cha Mapinduzi, Frelimo, SWAPO, and KANU etc.

It is a
trend that moves away form the existentialist philosophy that those who are
calling MDC incapacitated by the megaphone are intending the Party to
pursue. The Movement for Democratic Change does not exist because of ZANU PF
rather it exists because it offers a new line of thinking to Zimbabwe that
has not been pursued before. It is not driven by mere existentialism but
maybe by the need to be relative to the current needs of Zimbabwe at very
given time as they relate to the cosmos in its entirety.

Structural
relativism is to me more relevant and more pragmatic to a country in
continuum than mere existentialism because the later looks at what is
happening now and does not intend to take us into the future. Structurally
the MDC is the Party that is the most ready to take Zimbabweans to the next
day.

Then comes capacity as to personnel? Does MDC have the personnel
to govern Zimbabwe? We must start by the Presidency. Is Morgan Tsvangirai
really fit to be the President of Zimbabwe? Does he have the acumen.does he
have the charisma? One does not need any persuasion and even to look far
back into history to realise that historically the only political leader
that Zimbabwe has ever had who has a truly administrative background is
Morgan Tsvangirai.

For countries to run effectively you need a strong
administrator and the President of the MDC has that experience. As the
Secretary General of the ZCTU he was the head of the Secretariat. He was not
a trade union politician in ZCTU but an Administrator of the Country's sole
labour movement. He was a manager and was in that role for a spell that is
more than 10 years. Contrast that with Robert Mugabe who was a teacher not a
headmaster before he led ZANU PF and eventually the country's Prime
Minister.

He learnt administration on the job and with disastrous
consequences as we have seen. Morgan Tsvangirai interacted with all
industries, he was part of the Tripartite Negotiating Forum where he also
met with consumers, Government, Employers and other stake holders in his
previous role as the Secretary General of the MDC. He was also the countries
representative at the International Labour Organisation; a UN
Inter-Government Agency and was also part of many other Inter-Government
agencies for the Commonwealth, Africa and the region. His negotiating skill
at international level is not questionable, so are his credentials. Unlike
Robert Mugabe, his first international exposure will not be the equivalent
of Lancaster House Conference. He is already
experienced.

Tsvangirai's Government will include people like Tapiwa
Mashakada, Gift Chimanikire all reliable administrators in their own right
owing to their trade union experience, Samuel Sipepa Nkomo, Ian Makone,
Jessie Majome etc all of whom have been administrators before. It lays to
worst the argument about incapacity as to personnel. This is not the same
with ZANU PF when they took over as serve for a few people; all they had
then was guerrilla war experience. Joyce Mujuru, Edgar Tekere, Emmerson
Mnangagwa, Sydney Sekeramayi all of them did not know an inch about
administration when they were made cabinet ministers.

In South Africa
Nelson Mandela came straight from prison to become President, in Namibia Sam
Nujoma came straight from the bush to head the country..so did Yoweri
Museveni of Uganda in 1986. The same is true of the UK where Tony Blair had
not been an administrator before become the leader of New Labour in 1994 and
eventually the country's Prime Minister in 1997.

The depth as to
personnel argument that is being advanced is totally moribund as it does not
capture the reality that the MDC as a political organisation is currently
the best qualified in Zimbabwe. Likewise the Party has in the Diaspora
people like Elliot Pfebve, Durani Rapozo, Jonathan Chaora, Grey Samakande,
Jeff Madzingo, Professor Stanford Mukasa, Brian Nhandara, Nicholas Mada,
Andrew Manyevere, Benjamin Chitate, Emily Madamombe, Chipo Chaya, Bonny
Adams, Virginia Ncube etc all of whom are capable of serving their country
one day.

Brian Kagoro with all due respect must realise that it wouldn't
have been the will of the MDC to politicise the Civil Service and as such
the thinking that the Party would have been along the lines that the Civil
Service will not be touched. This is ethics of public governance and there
is no way that the MDC will be expected to have an army of shadow civil
servants that are loyal to it if we are not intent on turning the Party into
a bunch of hypocrites that practices the same style of governance we are
seeing in Zimbabwe today.

Yes it is true that there is a lot of
corruption in the civil service but it has been reiterated by the senior
Party leadership that there will be sweeping changes to public management
but such sweeping changes I am sure do not translate to the wholesale
dismissal of all public servants and their replacement with those pliable to
MDC. That's not the idea.

Having looked at the structural and personnel
readiness, I will then look at the functional capacity of the MDC to govern.
Has MDC addressed the issue of functions of the future government and are we
prepared? I think the real barometer for this is the Constitution. The
Movement for Democratic Change is part of a wider movement in Zimbabwe that
has said the first condition that has to be met before the 2008 Elections
should be a new democratic Constitution.

It is this Constitution that
shall bring about the necessary institutions for a truly democratic and
successful Zimbabwe. The Party once it becomes a government will be guided
in its functions by this new Constitution and it is clear that by
positioning itself with those who are calling for a new constitution the
Party is also reflecting their knowledge that the current functions of the
Government as spelt by the existing undemocratic Constitution are not going
to be entertained.

Once again, it is my view that MDC is running away
from the trappings of existentialism that ZANU PF has shown in the way they
have enacted reactive laws. The MDC is leading the way in calling for a
functional democracy where the Constitution comes from the people and where
that Constitution is the main manual towards the operation of
Government.

To conclude I am not persuaded by protagonists of the
incapacity of the MDC to govern. Rather it is just short sightedness that
has not attempted to take a very close look and do a comparative analysis of
the both the current and historical context of public management in
Zimbabwe. If that is done honestly it will be seen that the Movement for
Democratic Change and their leader Morgan Tsvangirai, is more than ready to
take Zimbabwe to the next day and surely they will meet a lot of light
there!

JULIUS SAI MUTYAMBIZI-DEWA IS THE SECRETARY OF MDC UK AND IRELAND.
HE IS ALSO THE AUTHOR OF A BOOK CALLED "PREACHING TO PRIESTS". HE WRITES IN
HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY.

Mugabe, the Anglican
Church and the "illegal sanctions

Zimbabwejournalists.com

24th May 2007 23:24 GMT

By Liberty Mupakati, Leeds,
UK

I have previously shied away from writing about the Robert Mugabe
ZANU PF government's oft used excuse for the mess that our country currently
finds itself in, "illegal sanctions" imposed against it by the
West.

It has become such a buzz word and now appears to have overtaken
inflation as the number one catch word in Mugabe's vocabulary. Government
figures show inflation scaling the 3 700% barrier, but independent figures
suggest that it is above 8 000%. There has been no word from the government
about how they intend to tackle their so-called number one
enemy.

Indeed, it has been seized upon by the Mugabeites both within the
country, who have been falling head over heels amongst themselves to gush
superlatives through the state-controlled media houses, and outside the
country as evidenced by the recent publicity offensive that is being fronted
by the UK based Ghanaian, Baffour Ankoma and other government-funded
internet websites.

It is not a coincidence that the issue of "illegal
sanctions" took more prominence in Mugabe's and his acolytes' speeches soon
after the international revulsion that greeted the brutal attacks that were
visited on the MDC leadership on 11th March 2007.

The sadistic
assaults brought back the international spotlight on the glaring human
rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Mugabe and his Robber Barons, perturbed by world
outcry over his treatment of MDC President, Morgan Tsvangirai, and his
colleagues in the police cells, sought refuge in diverting the world's
attention by inventing macabre events that were attributed to the MDC, in a
vain bid to portray it as a violent party.

Thus was born the ZRP report
that has been doing the rounds on the internet. It is an indictment of the
regime that it has sought to dig itself out of the hole by destroying its
own infrastructure and injuring its own personnel. In military speak, they
are referred to as collateral damage and are worth of sacrifice if this is
going to result in the perpetuation of the regime's hold on
power.

The Robber Barons have chosen to politicise the targeted sanctions
that have been levied against them and deliberately portrayed them to the
world as "economic sanctions". Economic sanctions have been defined as "the
actual or threatened denial of economic relations by one or more states
intended to influence the behaviour of another state on non-economic issues
or to limit its military capabilities".

It is therefore, discernible
from the above definition that the "sanctions" currently in force against
the luminaries in Harare are nowhere near wholesale sanctions that they
claim have been slapped against them by the West.

Like Ian Smith's
Rhodesia that breached and managed to evade sanctions during the UDI period,
the same can be said of the efficacy of military sanctions as the government
has repeatedly managed to dodge them through the assistance of "friendly"
countries such as Namibia, Malawi and others.

By their very nature,
sanctions represent a middle ground in international politics, being more
severe than mere verbal condemnation, but less severe than the use of force.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the smart sanctions being applied to it have
largely been confined to freezing economic assets of ZANU (PF) leading
lights and military sanctions. It has to be admitted that there has been
little headway in blocking the assets of those targeted given the perceived
riches that they have spirited away.

Far from the daily propaganda that
is churned from the Harare about "illegal sanctions", the sanctions that
have been levied on Zimbabwe fall in the domain of travel sanctions as these
include individuals being precluded from travelling to the EU countries and
USA, on their favourite shopping sprees. By their very nature, travel
sanctions are targeted, as they specifically involve government ministers
and other top ZANU PF functionaries.

These travel sanctions have been
breached by government ministers on several occasions on the pretext that
they would be on state business. A recent case in point is Francis Nhema,
the Tourism and Environment Minister being allowed to visit the USA to
attend a UN function.

The geriatrics and securocrats who are in control
of the wagons of the state today, are keen to hype up and attribute the
economic ills currently plaguing the country being the of these sanctions.
They have unashamedly used the sanctions as an excuse to paper over their
own inadequacies and ineptitude in managing the once vibrant
economy.

The notion that the country is struggling under the burden
placed on it by these "illegal sanctions" has won support from some
misguided African leaders who appear to have swallowed Mugabe's white-lie,
hook, line and sinker. Behind the façade of African camaraderie by these
African leaders is a real fear of what happen in their own backyards were
the MDC come to power in Zimbabwe. Mbeki, is particularly fearful of the
impact such a development may have in his own country, given the immense
political power that the COSATU hold in the triumvirate that currently rules
South Africa.

Mugabe has stoked up the fires and ratcheted up the
pressure on the West by invoking the issue of colonialism, that Britain
wanted to recolonize Zimbabwe and that the sanctions were imposed as
retribution for having dispossessed white farmers of their land for
redistribution to the majority. It is too simplistic and naïve to attribute
the country's economic problems to the non-existent sanctions and the land
reform exercise. What is inescapable is that the chaotic land reform
exacerbated the economic decline.

Zimbabwe is still in receipt of
development aid with Britain and the US being the biggest donors. It is thus
evident that the West is continually being blamed for the collapse of the
Zimbabwean economy when the authors of such economic demise are holed up in
the confines of Harare living in extreme luxury and filthy riches that even
the richest in the West can only dream of.

It is immoral that a few
people can live in such luxury whilst the rest of the population wallows in
poverty, yet they endeavour to extricate themselves from the trail of
destruction that they have caused by blaming non-existent sanctions imposed
by non-existent enemies.

Generally it has been observed that in a country
that is under sanctions, the middle class is eliminated, the poor get
poorer, and the rich get richer as they take control of smuggling and the
black market. Zimbabwe may offer a case study of debunking this view as
Robber Barons who have contributed immensely to and benefited in equal
measure from the economic collapse have "Zanunised" the country's industrial
base.

It is therefore, hypocritical for them to continually blame the
sanctions when they are the beneficiaries. In fact it is a fallacy that they
want people to believe whilst they are lining their already heavily lined
pockets and feeding their troughs.

Apart from a few multinational
companies, the remainder are in the hands of the either the state or ZANU PF
functionaries. One can go as far as asserting that with the passage of time
that ZANU PFhas been in power, it is increasingly becoming difficult to
distinguish the State from ZANU PF. It now appears as though the two are
synonymous with each other. Whereas, it is acceptable in democracies for one
to oppose the government of the day, in Zimbabwe, it is a crime. This is
evidenced by the continuous arrests and detention without trial of scores of
MDC activists and anyone who dares to challenge the excesses of the
regime.

The monopolization of the means of production by ZANU PF and its
functionaries is one reason why there has to be a paradigm shift in trade
union circles about the efficacy of stayaways. They simply have seen their
sell-by date and would not work in this day and age when the people who owe
their riches to the government own the companies and have unfettered access
to the state security machinery to call upon to identify the "ring leaders".
The fact that the unemployment rate is close to 90% and rising mean that
workers are more intent on keeping their jobs.

The shrinkage of the
economic space has seen the ZANU PF Mafia strengthening its grip on an
economy teetering on the brink of an abyss. The diminishing trade channels
have meant that only those with control over assets and networks can
dominate economic and political activities. If anything, those in ZANU PF
have benefited immensely from the so-called sanctions as they have been able
to amass these riches without any known history of primitive accumulation.
It beggars belief that government ministers can suddenly become zillionaires
when prior to their appointments they led modest lifestyles.

The
drive to sanitise the offensive regime of Robert Mugabe has sucked in the
Church, with the Anglican Church being the most high profile to have openly
expressed views that chime with the daily propaganda that is churned out of
the government controlled media. The Pastoral Letter of its Bishops released
after the Episcopal Synod in April demonstrates how pliant and subjugated
the Anglican Church has become to the regime of Robert Mugabe.

One would
be forgiven for thinking this report was authored in the Munhumutapa
Building as it bore an uncanny resemblance with, and has all the hallmarks
of a George Charamba literary product. It has since emerged that some men of
the cloth are dissociating themselves from this ecclesiastical
fraud.

Students of African history would recall the assertion about
"missionaries being forerunners of colonialism" throughout the length and
breadth of the continent. The Nolbert Kunongas, Obadiah Msindos, Trevor
Manhanga and other state apologists are craving to fill the void left by the
late Border Gezi in delivering the church vote to the regime.

The
Anglican Pastoral Report of April confirmed the widely held suspicions of
the politicisation of the pulpit. The Anglican Bishops' report was a PR coup
for an embattled Robert Mugabe as it lent ecclesiastical approval to his
obnoxious views about "illegal sanctions". Kunonga and his fellow primates
regard themselves as part of the African Church, and feel duty bound to
stand "shoulder to shoulder" with this dictatorship.

One would have
thought that the Pastoral letter would empathise with the suffering of its
congregation and spoken about the causation of such suffering. Instead, the
report parroted the official line that the suffering was a consequence of
sanctions. There was a glaring lack of understanding of the dynamics at
play in the country and clearly one could see nothing but a resonance with
the daily propaganda stuff churned out daily in the Herald and other state
media.

That the Herald gave the Report a ringing and rapturous
endorsement speaks volumes for how grateful the regime was for the support
from these men of cloth. It was in stark contrast to the reception that was
given to the Pastoral Letter that was released by the Catholic Bishops at
Easter.

The Pastoral Letter led to the Catholic Bishops being labelled
opponents of the state and would therefore be treated as such, whilst the
Anglican Bishops were garlanded and lauded for their patriotism. The
Anglican Bishops report demonstrated just how far removed these primates are
from the harsh reality that obtain in the country.

A parliamentary committee dominated by Zimbabwe's ruling
ZANU-PF, has recommended that the government temporarily close its
controversial National Youth Service training centers.

The committee,
chaired by ZANU-PF's member of parliament for Gutu South, Shuvai Mahofa,
cited starvation and unreported cases of sexual abuse of female recruits by
male instructors and fellow male trainees, as reasons for the suggested
closure.

The committee's recommendation, came ahead of an announcement by
Zimbabwe's deputy youth minister Saviour Kasukuwere, that his ministry
intended to expand the youth program, which he described as a noble idea
that helps youth contribute positively to society.

Kasukuwere
however, declined to comment on the parliamentary report saying he had not
yet studied it.

The timing of the announcement, less than a year before
the March 2008 presidential and parliamentary elections, has raised
suspicion among many opposition, as well as human rights advocates, who have
accused President Mugabe's government of using the youth, also called "green
bombers," as shock troops to harass, intimidate and torture political
opponents.

Political analyst Glen Mupani, based at Cape Town University
in South Africa, told reporter Blessing Zulu of VOA's Studio 7 for Zimbabwe,
that the closure of the camps was long overdue, as they were being used for
political expediency by the ruling party.

Christian Alliance has successful youth rally in Mutare

By Tererai
KarimakwendaMay 25, 2007

About 300 youths from Mutare gathered at a
church on Friday for a peaceful rally organized by the Christian Alliance.
Coordinator Pastor Ray Motsi said the idea was to inform them about the
issues concerning our country, how they ought to behave and what is the way
forward. The event took place just a day after the government extended a ban
on political rallies and back in March the police blocked a prayer meeting
organized by the Christian Alliance, claiming it was a political gathering.
Pastor Motsi said: "It was very peaceful and we never had any disturbances
at all. There wasn't even any noticeable police even though we know that the
CIOs would be part of the crowd anyway."

Pastor Motsi said the church
was full and there were 6 or 7 local pastors and various youth groups from
Mutare. Representatives from the Zimbabwe National Students Union (ZINASU)
addressed the youth about the situation in the colleges. Some entertainment
was also provided by local groups and special guest Pastor G. The popular
musician said music is a non-threatening form of communication.

Asked
how the youth responded the Pastor said: "They felt very encouraged and some
of them communicated that they had found a way to express themselves as
Christian youth in Zimbabwe."

Rally against lack of Zimbabwe human
rights - NZ

Opponents of the Mugabe regime in
Zimbabwe have voiced their concerns outside Parliament
today.

Around 50 people, including representatives from human rights
and expatriate groups, rallied on Parliamentary grounds after
midday.

Amnesty International spokesman Ced Simpson says there has
been a major deterioration in human rights in Zimbabwe in the past year. He
says hunger and homelessness are spreading and repression under the regime
has intensified.

Green MP Keith Locke is calling on the
Government to be more proactive in its opposition of the Mugabe regime and
even provide regulations that will allow sporting groups to pull out of
tours without suffering penalties.

MDC UK to hold strategic planning workshop in Birmingham

By Tichaona
Sibanda25 May 2007

The first ever MDC strategic planning workshop to
prepare for a new Zimbabwe will be held in Birmingham, UK on Saturday.
Activists will examine various issues, including how the party could work
with Zanu (PF) progressive forces.

Makusha Mugabe, a member of the
MDC press unit in Birmingham, said the workshop is open to all card carrying
members of the party in the UK and has a number of guest speakers lined-up
who will present topics of major concerns to the opposition party.

In
a post Mugabe transition era the MDC, aware of the consequences of being
caught off guard, will specifically study the role of the security forces
and how the party would relate to them.

'We have professionals for
each category that will discuss issues ranging from unity to how the MDC can
maximize co-operation with other democratic forces. We will also have
lawyers who will present a draft on the history of post-independence
elections in Zimbabwe, the lessons learned and the way forward,' Makusha
Mugabe said.

In a free and fair election analysts believe Mugabe doesn't
stand a chance against a united opposition. Mugabe's current term in office
expires next year but he is reluctant to leave office and recently proposed
running for another six-year term in 2008.

However support for the
ruling Zanu (PF) leader in the country and within his own party is declining
rapidly and several influential party officials are jockeying for the
presidency. There are clear indications of unrest among the broader
population and within the armed forces, the police and Zanu (PF).While
the end of Mugabe's reign is long overdue, it will be no guarantee that a
Zanu PF successor will prove more willing to support multi-party democracy
or abandon the repressive economic and political policies that have led the
country into its current crisis.

Zambian citizens Blame Government for Roaming Elephant
Damage

VOA

By Angel TabeWashington25 May
2007

Roaming elephants in Zambia are said to be destroying
food crops, property and even human lives. The country's wildlife
authorities say they are working to resolve the problems, but villagers
blame the continuing rampage on what they see as the government's reluctance
to take action.

Lewis Saiwana is the director-general of the Zambian
Wildlife Authority (ZAWA.) Voice of America English to Africa reporter Angel
Tabe asked him why there's a nationwide problem with elephants and what is
being done about it. He said, "There is an increase in the elephant
population. They have found a better habitat in Zambia. As the Zambia
Wildlife Authority, our control hunters control these problem elephants
through.fencing. When elephants destroy public property, our hunters control
them."

Saiwana says the animals are fleeing harassment in search
ofsecurity, which can be guaranteed not only by good wildlife policies, but
also by better resources. He says, "The protection of wildlife is actually
the same in the region, but [if funds are] available, the level of
protection is also quite good."

Since this issue involves the borders
of Zambia and Zimbabwe, Sainwana says the two countries have agreed to work
things out as a team: "There are arrangements that we establish a
trans-frontier conservation area." And to balance wildlife conservation and
community livelihood demands, He says, "We need to sit down with the
Zimbabwean Wildlife Authority so that we can put programs in place which are
accepted on both sides.maybe the situation can be
normalized."

Regarding compensation for losses resulting from rampaging
elephants, Sainwana says, "No law exists to regulate that. But in terms of
crops, maybe an estimation can be used and our government is actually
discussing [the possibility of] compensating people, but there are just
debates on that."

Labour leaders, MPs resist proposed health
scheme

Zim Online

Saturday 26 May 2007

By Pfudzai
Chibgowa

HARARE - Zimbabwe trade union leaders and some Members of
Parliament have criticised plans by the government to introduce a new
compulsory health scheme, which they say is a new tax that will only help
impoverish hard-pressed workers.

They said besides adding a fresh
financial burden on struggling workers, there was little chance the new
health scheme could work given the gross incompetence at the National Social
Security Authority (NSSA) tasked by the government to run the proposed
scheme.

"Is this not another scheme to make life more miserable for the
worker and the poor peasants?" queried Zimbabwe Council of Chiefs president
and parliamentarian Fortune Charumbira during a public hearing on the health
scheme.

Under the scheme, all workers in the country would be
required by law to contribute to the health scheme. Workers on private
health insurance schemes could retain these but would still be required to
contribute to the national health scheme.

Zimbabwe Congress of Trade
Unions secretary general Wellington Chibebe called the scheme a new form of
taxation, adding that what workers were clamouring for was reduction in
individual taxation to help them make ends meet amid rocketing inflation and
worsening economic crisis.

He said: "Let's not fool and cheat the workers
that NSSA is doing it for the workers' benefit. Workers are agitating for a
tax reduction and this scheme is another form of taxation."

Defending
the proposed health scheme, NSSA boss Arnold Takawira said the scheme was
necessary to ensure that every worker enjoyed some form of health insurance
unlike at present when only a small fraction were covered by private health
insurance providers.

Takawira said: "Current health insurance schemes
only cover 10 percent of the working population and we hope to cover all
workers. Out of the 1.6 million workers, private health insurance schemes
only cover 200 000 of them."

Zimbabwean workers are some of the
highest taxed in the world, while the remainder of their salaries is quickly
wiped away by inflation, which at more than 3 700 percent is the highest in
the world. - ZimOnline